Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 22, 2005, 11:07 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Default

Okay well i dont know the exact law on selling photography but im sure there is one, anyway i was wondering say i took a photo of europes biggest transportable wheel and sold it is there some kind of copyright on actually selling things like this???? and if so what is it? :?
monkey_wrench is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 22, 2005, 1:46 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

There certainly could be copyright issues with what you took the picture of. I can't tell you what they are, as I don't know the subject in question. But you'd be surprised what is copyrighted now adays.

You can't sell a picture of the light display on the Eiffel tower at night because its copyrighted! Yes, you can't take a picture of a national landmark at night and sell it!

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 3:12 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
There certainly could be copyright issues with what you took the picture of. I can't tell you what they are, as I don't know the subject in question. But you'd be surprised what is copyrighted now adays.

You can't sell a picture of the light display on the Eiffel tower at night because its copyrighted! Yes, you can't take a picture of a national landmark at night and sell it!

Eric
well thats the french for ya! haha

i believe i heard that when taking a photo of people...sayy on a bus, you have to ask them if you can take the picture which i believe is pointless because you'll get some old granny smurking on the picture
monkey_wrench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 7:23 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

(While I'm not thrilled with everything about the French. I think you can safely say they were immitating the US and making money any way they can.)

You most certainly do. If you take a picture of people and then sell that pictuer without their permission be prepared to loose all you have. They'll sue you and take a lot more than the money you made by selling the picture.

copyright law is a very easy thing to find out about on the web:
http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag1-6mf.shtml
And this PDF is really good:
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?...article_id=609

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 7:32 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Unfortunatelylaws vary country by country :?

You only need to ask (and get signed releases)if you plan to market the images.

The same goes for recognizable privately ownedchattel and newer buildings, not sure now what year it changed in. But older buildings are generally fair game, newer ones require a release(because the architects have copyrighted their designs). Unless like the French the owners modify the old landmark withsomething that can becopyrighted like their nice lights.

If you are not sure try to locate the owners and ask before trying to market it.

Completely different rules apply for shooting news-worthy editorial events :?

Peter.

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 4:05 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
Default

Copyright laws do vary from country to country, however:

-- The Berne Convention applies general copyright law across the globe (some of the US copyright laws had to be modified to conform to the Berne Convention)

-- Unless you're a corporation doing business in a foreign country or regularly visit that county, it may be difficult for the plaintiff to sue you and to collect a judgment against you (although it may be less difficult in the EU... I know very little about EU law)

-- Don't confuse copyright (the right an "author" [which includes sculptors, singers, composers, architects, etc] have in duplicating and creating derivative works of their original creation) with rights to publicity/privacy(the property rights people have in their likeness and its use in marketing products or association with other things) and trademark (a business's right to protect its goodwill and to identify the source of products).

For example, in the previous post, people mentioned getting signed MODEL RELEASES. Those model releases have to do with the model's personal rights to publicity, not the copyright of the image. In America and most of the world, copyrights rest with the photographer, model release or not. Let's say I take a picture of my co-worker's very cute infant son, and give my co-worker a print. Technically, she cannot go make more copies of that print, either to keep or to sell... that would violate my copyright in the image. But if I go out and sell that picture to a stock photo company, or to Gerber to be used on their baby formula bottles, then she could sue me for commercial appropriation of likeness.

The Eiffel tower presentation is a different kettle of fish altogether. If there was a reason thatyou can't photograph the light display, it's because the presentation is copyrighted. Just like, you can't take a video of a play without violating someone's copyright. (Although taking a still photo might be a "fair use" in America).

Peter, I think, when talking about recognizeable buildings, is referring to the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" case, in which the R&R hall of fame sued a photographer for copyright and trademark infringement after he took pictures of the building and sold postcards and other things. The district court enjoined the sales, but commentators have universally derided the decision as contrary to copyright and trademark law. I'll bring in my copyright textbook tomorrow and post some research on that. Thus, I'm not sure Peter's proposition is entirely correct. Architects may have copyrights in their blueprints, in their mockups, in their computer models, but I do not believe that they can claim copyright violations if pictures are taken of their buildings.

Peter's reference to newsworthy events refers to the affirmative defense of "fair use." That is, essentially, an acknolwedgement that what you've done infringes copyright but argues that you're not liable because what you've taken is not substantial enough to truly cost the owner anything. "Fair use" is determined while looking at (1) the total of the original work, (2) the amount of the original work used (3) the purpose of the use (educational, news report, or commercial), (4) how "transformative" the use is and (5) the effect on the market for the original. Thus, let's say in my term paper I quoted "Fatherhood" by Bill Cosby. I took, say, five paragraphs of the book just as an introduction to the paper. There, the work is farily long, my use was minimal, it was for a noncommercial purpose, it was not terribly transformative, and would have not effect on the market for the original. Thus, although I copied BC's words, it's fair. But note that "newsworthiness," meaning the purpose of the infringement would be to report onnews,is only one aspect of the equasion.
perdendosi is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:55 PM.