Anyone sell their WDW Prints?

[GoofyontheHiSeas]

I can't remember for sure....but can't you see the castle of DisneyLand from the expressway? I know you can see alot more in Ca than in FL Disney parks...

Interesting discussion....

Not really. Because the castle is much-much shorter than the one at WDW you can't get a shot of the whole castle. From the upper floors of some the surrounding hotels you might get the top of the castle. You can see the Matterhorn and SM from the freeway.

 

[fitzperry]

With America's conservative approach to real property, nothing would be "public" if all private property were considered private locations. There are no published opinions as to whether WDW is public, but to give an example, enclosed malls are 'public' locations. It is possible that places within WDW that charge entrance fees are not public, but I doubt it. The bulk of WDW is most certainly a public location for the purposes of this discussion.

But you don't have to have a ticket to enter a mall. I've never gone to the trouble of investigating it, but I suspect that the license you are granted to enter Disney property contains some restrictions on what you may do with the photographs you take there.

 

[MICKEY88]

There are no published opinions as to whether WDW is public, but to give an example, enclosed malls are 'public' locations. It is possible that places within WDW that charge entrance fees are not public, but I doubt it. The bulk of WDW is most certainly a public location for the purposes of this discussion.

.

I respectfully disagree with this as well, if malls are public places, security could not escort you out and malls could not ban you for life, which they certainly can do,

also try doing a photo shoot in a mall. and then arguing the point that you are on public property when they tell you to stop and escort you off property..

one of the websites I mentioned is Model mayhem, feel free to search for this topic , it comes up frequently.. there is a difference between being able to photograph something if standing on public property, and being able to publish/sell/or profit from that photo

technically your section of copyright doesn't really apply either since the castle can not be viewed/photographed from a public location.


I think their is some confusion here, there actually is a difference between being in public, and being on public property, when you are at the mall you are out in public, but you are on private property

 

[WDWFigment]

There is a United States Supreme Court case from 1979 setting forth that shopping malls are public forums. The citation for the case is 447 U.S. 74. Just because a mall does one thing, doesn't make that thing the law. Moreover, just because it's a public forum doesn't give you free reign to do whatever you want.

Also of import is that the section of the USC I cited does not say public property. It says a public place. I have articulated my argument as to why I believe it's a public place, and provided citations to support as much. Although there is no case law addressing the specific issue of whether WDW is a public place, I think I have advanced a sound argument by analogy. So far no one has contradicted my posts with the only thing that matters, the law. Does anyone actually have any statutes or case law to cite?

 

[rtphokie]

There is likely some legal contract associated with purchase of a theme park ticket. I cant seem to find it online though.

 

[RBennett]

You know, I deal with this at work a lot and I'll just toss my .02 in here. I know that police departments and businesses both consider their parking lots and property to be private property, even though the public has free access to it. If you go to a mall, Wal-Mart, or any other store, it is private property even though it is "free" for the public to just walk into. Just thought that might be relevant here.

 

[pgowder]

Here are some examples of people selling prints.

http://www.themagicinpixels.com/ind...x20-Mounted-Print/Detailed-product-flyer.html

http://www.satprints.com/waltdisneyworldfloridasatellitemapprintposter.aspx

http://www.satprints.com/waltdisneyworldfloridasatellitemapprintposter.aspx

http://photos.jacksonville.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=21873913&event=669904&CategoryID=10519

http://www.zazzle.com/disney+world+gifts

Legal or not, doesn't look like Disney is actively going after these sites.

 

[fitzperry]

There is a United States Supreme Court case from 1979 setting forth that shopping malls are public forums. The citation for the case is 447 U.S. 74. Just because a mall does one thing, doesn't make that thing the law. Moreover, just because it's a public forum doesn't give you free reign to do whatever you want.

Also of import is that the section of the USC I cited does not say public property. It says a public place. I have articulated my argument as to why I believe it's a public place, and provided citations to support as much. Although there is no case law addressing the specific issue of whether WDW is a public place, I think I have advanced a sound argument by analogy. So far no one has contradicted my posts with the only thing that matters, the law. Does anyone actually have any statutes or case law to cite?

If you're arguing that Pruneyard Shopping Center authorizes you to sell a photo of Cinderella Castle, then you are stretching it much too far. In that case, the Court held that individuals could peacefully exercise their right to free speech in a mall. More specifically, it held that the affirmative right to free speech contained in the California Constitution (as distinguished from the negative restriction on the government found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) did not infringe the shopping center owner's property rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments. So I guess maybe you could go yell about healthcare reform in front of the castle at Disneyland (not sure what the Florida Constitution has to say on the subject) . . . or maybe not, because this still ignores the distinction that you've had to purchase a ticket to enter the theme park, and that ticket includes a long list of terms and conditions. Like rtphokie, I was not able to locate those quickly, and unfortunately I don't have the time right now. My guess is that by entering the park using that ticket, you're agreeing to some restrictions on what you can do with the pictures you take there, but I really don't know.

On the trademark issue, there was a decision (6th Circuit, I believe) where the court refused to recognize the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a trademark. Obviously, that doesn't mean that a different court wouldn't reach a different conclusion about a Disney icon. I did a quick search on a stock photo site for a "Disney castle" and came up with a lot of pictures of the Neuschwanstein castle in Germany, but none of Disney's. Evidently, the threats are effective, even if the law is unclear.

Here's an interesting article on the need for property releases, acknowledging that the law in this area is quite murky: http://www.asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html I think the conversion theory is interesting--analogous to an individual's right of publicity--basically that by profiting from an image of someone else's property, you're converting that property to your own use.

 

[WDWFigment]

If you're arguing that Pruneyard Shopping Center authorizes you to sell a photo of Cinderella Castle, then you are stretching it much too far. In that case, the Court held that individuals could peacefully exercise their right to free speech in a mall. More specifically, it held that the affirmative right to free speech contained in the California Constitution (as distinguished from the negative restriction on the government found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) did not infringe the shopping center owner's property rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments. So I guess maybe you could go yell about healthcare reform in front of the castle at Disneyland (not sure what the Florida Constitution has to say on the subject) . . . or maybe not, because this still ignores the distinction that you've had to purchase a ticket to enter the theme park, and that ticket includes a long list of terms and conditions. Like rtphokie, I was not able to locate those quickly, and unfortunately I don't have the time right now. My guess is that by entering the park using that ticket, you're agreeing to some restrictions on what you can do with the pictures you take there, but I really don't know.

On the trademark issue, there was a decision (6th Circuit, I believe) where the court refused to recognize the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a trademark. Obviously, that doesn't mean that a different court wouldn't reach a different conclusion about a Disney icon. I did a quick search on a stock photo site for a "Disney castle" and came up with a lot of pictures of the Neuschwanstein castle in Germany, but none of Disney's. Evidently, the threats are effective, even if the law is unclear.

Here's an interesting article on the need for property releases, acknowledging that the law in this area is quite murky: http://www.asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html I think the conversion theory is interesting--analogous to an individual's right of publicity--basically that by profiting from an image of someone else's property, you're converting that property to your own use.

I cited Pruneyard after my example that a mall is a public forum in a previous post was challenged based on actual practices at malls. A mall being a public forum I think lends credence to the argument that the area outside of the Disney Park gates is a public place. Since I couldn't readily locate any case law interpreting what, exactly, public place means, I turned to the closest analog I could find. A picture of the castle could be taken from outside of the park, and that seems to be all that is required for the purpose of the statute, not that the photo was actually taken within the park, so it doesn't much matter what contractual terms and conditions attach to the theme park ticket. If you don't need the theme park ticket to get a similar shot, those terms don't matter (now it might be interesting to see how a court would interpret 'the same shot'--is a shot of the Castle taken down Main Street substantially similar to one taken from the California Grill? (which then requires answer to the question: is the California Grill a public place? You don't have to dine there nor do you have to stay in the Contemporary to go up there).

I'm not trying to stretch Pruneyard any further than for the basic premise that malls are public forums. Is a public forum exactly the same as a 'public place'? That's certainly debatable.

I will have to locate that 6th Circuit case. I think Disney has a stronger argument than the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but I that still doesn't seem like a winning argument. Disney's best argument for a trademark on the look of its buildings definitely lies with the Castle, Sorceror's Hat, and SpaceShip Earth. Once you get to other buildings, I think the argument would be quite similar to the R&R HoF.

That conversion theory is interesting, but I think that requires a huge leap of faith as to the extent of someone's property rights. Even so, if Disney tried to argue that theory, I wonder if it would be as successful as an individual arguing the same. Certainly Disney is the property equivalent of a 'public figure' whereas an individual's house is the equivalent of a 'private figure'. Do the Disney parks have the same 'right to privacy' as your house? I honestly don't think many courts would hold that they do. Now, the Disney parks aren't as public as say, Times Square, either. However, that point has not been addressed by a court, so it is all academic.

 

[GrillMouster]

Here are some examples of people selling prints.

http://www.themagicinpixels.com/ind...x20-Mounted-Print/Detailed-product-flyer.html

http://www.satprints.com/waltdisneyworldfloridasatellitemapprintposter.aspx

http://www.satprints.com/waltdisneyworldfloridasatellitemapprintposter.aspx

http://photos.jacksonville.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=21873913&event=669904&CategoryID=10519

http://www.zazzle.com/disney+world+gifts

Legal or not, doesn't look like Disney is actively going after these sites.

I took a look at these sites, and with the exception of the first one there's just enough going on that they may not be violating any copyright or trademark. And as for the first one, we don't now whether the photographer got permission from Disney. For instance, the satelite images are too far away to be recognizable. The photos from the Jacksonville site have nothing definitively "Disney" in them. You don't see Spaceship Earth or monorails, but you do see the monorail track, and that's not enough. On the zazzle site hardly anything has trademarked images or logos on them. The most common thing on this site is the english/spanish phrase about keeping your hands away from the doors, and that's not unique to Disney. I hear the same phrase taking the tram at my local airport. And monorails aren't unique to Disney. There are postcards for sale of a yellow flower with a blurry castle in the background, that may or may not be Cinderella castle.

I imagine that in all instances Disney weighs the advantages and disadvantages of going after someone. In many instances, this site being one, it's to Disney's advantage to leave it alone (not that this site is doing anything wrong). It's free advertising and promotion for Disney and it's not costing them a dime.

 

[MICKEY88]

Despite what Disney's legal team might tell you, it most definitely is legal so long as it's architectural. When you get into character shots, that's a fuzzier area of copyright law, but I think Disney would have a difficult time winning any suit. Then again, if they wanted, they would certainly bankrupt you in the process. So maybe it isn't worth it.

if you're talking face charachters, wouldn't you need a model release..??

 

[manning]

Since I doubt a lot of Armchair Attorneys out there are simply going to take my word for it, here is the relevant section of the USC governing the matter:

17 U.S.C.A. § 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works


(a) Pictorial representations permitted.--The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

Here's the kicker. When you take a picture at Disney. 99% percent of the time you are not on public property. You are on Disney property. You may own the copy right but they control how it can be used.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Lot's of people sell their WDW prints. Go to a site like Smugmug and search for Disney. You'll find tons of galleries and you'll be able to order prints from most of them.

Can Disney stop you from selling them? Almost certainly. Will they? Probably not.

All of my pictures on Smugmug, Disney or otherwise, are for sale. I add a very small markup to Smugmug's price (about 8 cents a shot) to help cover the cost of my Smugmug account. Most of my sales are for portrait shots I do in my garage or for kid's sports events. I do sell a bunch of Disney prints, presumably to scrapbookers looking for some stock shots. Disney has never complained. If they do, I'll be glad to discuss it with them.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

With America's conservative approach to real property, nothing would be "public" if all private property were considered private locations. There are no published opinions as to whether WDW is public, but to give an example, enclosed malls are 'public' locations. It is possible that places within WDW that charge entrance fees are not public, but I doubt it. The bulk of WDW is most certainly a public location for the purposes of this discussion.

EXIF won't be used against you, at least as far as this is concerned. As I stated previously, the law turns on whether you could take the image from a public location, not where you actually took it.

If your arguments are going to turn on what you've 'read on several photography forums involving lawyers' would you care to link to said discussions. Not trying to call anyone out, but that's a naked assertion and isn't really a substantive argument without providing a link.

I can't link to any specific web material because my instruction was in a presentation. We had a local professional photographer talk about shooting the Woodlands Town Square area. All of that area is either public property or a public accomadation, as I understand it. Parts are truly public property (like most of the streets, sidewalks, the county buildings, etc). Parts are private property operated for the public as a public accomodation (restaurants, the Marriott, the Mall, and Market Street).

Those privately owned public areas are the tricky part. Even though some of them (like Market Street - an outdoor mall) look like public places, they aren't. The owners can ask you to leave. They can demand that you not take pictures. I don't specifically recall what was said about pictures that you do take there, but I do recall that they can demand that you stop shooting and leave.

We were told that if you are truly on a public (not privately owned) place, stand your ground and keep shooting. Don't let anyone stop you. If you are on privately owned property, do what the owner or his agent says or leave.

 

[WDWFigment]

I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread. I keep telling myself 'no more posting' in it, yet I keep being lured in. Last post, I promise...

if you're talking face charachters, wouldn't you need a model release..??

Since doing more research on this, I have to say my statement that it's a 'fuzzy area' was an overstatement. Disney would win that suit.

Here's the kicker. When you take a picture at Disney. 99% percent of the time you are not on public property. You are on Disney property. You may own the copy right but they control how it can be used.

Again, you are not reading the statute as written. In pertinant part: "if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." (emphasis added).

There isn't a requirement that the shot be taken on public property, only that its subject be visible from a public location. As stated previously, a public location does not necessarily mean public property.

I am not intending to parse words. These are important distinctions that change the meaning of the law.

I can't link to any specific web material because my instruction was in a presentation. We had a local professional photographer talk about shooting the Woodlands Town Square area. All of that area is either public property or a public accomadation, as I understand it. Parts are truly public property (like most of the streets, sidewalks, the county buildings, etc). Parts are private property operated for the public as a public accomodation (restaurants, the Marriott, the Mall, and Market Street).

Those privately owned public areas are the tricky part. Even though some of them (like Market Street - an outdoor mall) look like public places, they aren't. The owners can ask you to leave. They can demand that you not take pictures. I don't specifically recall what was said about pictures that you do take there, but I do recall that they can demand that you stop shooting and leave.

We were told that if you are truly on a public (not privately owned) place, stand your ground and keep shooting. Don't let anyone stop you. If you are on privately owned property, do what the owner or his agent says or leave.

This is getting into an area apart from Copyright law (an area with which I am admittedly unfamiliar). It is quite possible that the owner of a public place (that is private property) can prevent you from taking pictures in some or all circumstances. I honestly have no idea. Perhaps someone else with legal knowledge in that area could chime in?

What I'm talking about is once you get the shot. The owner in your circumstance couldn't see your images posted online and retroactively make an objection (unless he previously had made one) and somehow have some recourse with copyright law. Disney's 'retroactive objection' depending on some of the foregoing discussion and the contractual terms attached to the ticket (although the strongest terms would be on the ticket itself...a court may be reluctant to enforce any incorporated terms), might be stronger.

 

[MICKEY88]

I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread. I keep telling myself 'no more posting' in it, yet I keep being lured in. Last post, I promise...



Since doing more research on this, I have to say my statement that it's a 'fuzzy area' was an overstatement. Disney would win that suit.



Again, you are not reading the statute as written. In pertinant part: "if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." (emphasis added).

There isn't a requirement that the shot be taken on public property, only that its subject be visible from a public location. As stated previously, a public location does not necessarily mean public property.

I am not intending to parse words. These are important distinctions that change the meaning of the law.



This is getting into an area apart from Copyright law (an area with which I am admittedly unfamiliar). It is quite possible that the owner of a public place (that is private property) can prevent you from taking pictures in some or all circumstances. I honestly have no idea. Perhaps someone else with legal knowledge in that area could chime in?

What I'm talking about is once you get the shot. The owner in your circumstance couldn't see your images posted online and retroactively make an objection (unless he previously had made one) and somehow have some recourse with copyright law. Disney's 'retroactive objection' depending on some of the foregoing discussion and the contractual terms attached to the ticket (although the strongest terms would be on the ticket itself...a court may be reluctant to enforce any incorporated terms), might be stronger.

a property owner can insist you stop shooting and leave if you are on private property, they can not make you delete pics you've already taken, however you can not legally sell those photos, although you hold copyright to them..

the law doesn't change just because the property owner did not see the photo being taken...

 

[manning]

If I am correct if Disney built something that can be photographed from a public spot they could stop you from selling it....provided it was build in 1990 or later. I read this somewhere but don't remember where. I think the law was changed to where buildings can be copy righted

I could be wrong, the old memory is not as good as it used to be.

 

[dmccarty]

If I am correct if Disney built something that can be photographed from a public spot they could stop you from selling it....provided it was build in 1990 or later. I read this somewhere but don't remember where. I think the law was changed to where buildings can be copy righted

I could be wrong, the old memory is not as good as it used to be.

My memory is not as good as it used to be either. I don't think they are senior moments since I am not a senior though I am a Federally protected age at this point.

I prefer to think my memory issues are due to how much stuff I have to remember. The old search engine has to sort through so much more information now a days!

There was a change of copyright law to property built after 1990.

It is still not clear to me Disney could legally stop the sale of photograph of a building built after 1990 or before as long as the photo was sold as Art. But there are other ifs, ands, ors, and butts that I will not mention since it just muddies the water. The real bottom line is that Disney has deeper pockets than I do. If I am selling a photo that Disney wants me to stop selling they have the legal muscle while I am the skinny, scawney kid on the beach....

Unfortunately I have been reading up on photography related law. Reading about the law makes my head hurt.

On the ASMP website, American Society of Media Photographers, there are some good legal discussions/information. So far I have not found what I am interested but I ran across the following regarding buildings and places that "might cause problems if shown photographically." The properties and objects might be/alleged to be covered with trademark or contract. Contract could be a ticket. http://www.pacaoffice.org/resources/specialReleases.html

Bullet four mentions EPCOT, Disneyland and Disney Characters. I would assume Magic Kingdom or any obvious Disney property would be in this covered. I am sure the creator of the list is not on the DISBoards. Bullet five is the "Lone Cypress" tree at Pebble Beach which I mentioned in a previous post.

It is interesting what is on the list. Quite a few buildings as well as cars and car logos.

The page in question does not make a statement a person using a photo of the place/property on the list is a violation of law for COMMERCIAL or EDITORIAL use. ART is not mentioned. Just that checking with a lawyer would be a good idea.

Selling as Art is likely ok as I said earlier. Maybe. Could be. Selling of photography always gets back to HOW is the image to be used as, ART, COMMERCIAL, or EDITORIAL. And when does the use of a photograph go from art, say selling 10 prints of the MK Castle to selling 100 or 1,000 Tshirts with the same image.

Then there is the law regarding derivative works!

Later,
Dan