Anyone sell their WDW Prints?

[pgowder]

Does any here sell their prints form Disney World?

Is it legal to sell photos of WDW? I know Disney goes after copyright infringement.

Thanks!

 

[MICKEY88]

People do sell them,

IT IS NOT LEGAL


INfo directly from Disney Legal team..

my daughter did the college program, she worked costuming for the main street parade ,
while she was there I visited and took lots of pics , especially of the parade, I then sent her a book of 8x10's so she could get her friends to autograph them, quite a few asked where she got the book and then asked if they could buy one..
I contacted the legal dept, to protect myself, and I also didn't want to do anything that would jeopardize her college program experience.

I was told that I could sell copies to cast members, as long as I kept the price reasonable, they also made it quite clear that if I were to expand my sales beyond that, such as selling them online,, they would prosecute....

 

[pgowder]

People do sell them,

IT IS NOT LEGAL

Thanks!

And good to hear from another A700 owner!

 

[zackiedawg]

Definitely not...anything identifiable as a Disney location, structure, character, etc is Disney property, and would have to have permission given to sell. I know some people who have gotten licensed to sell Disney photos - but you have to be willing to jump through legal hoops and pay some money - so better plan on selling a lot!

 

[AndrewWG]

Definitely not...anything identifiable as a Disney location, structure, character, etc is Disney property, and would have to have permission given to sell. I know some people who have gotten licensed to sell Disney photos - but you have to be willing to jump through legal hoops and pay some money - so better plan on selling a lot!

Lets expand this a bit. Lets say I have a very nice photo of an animal from AK. It is not identifiable as an animal from AK per se. Is it then legal to sell it? Could have been taken anywhere. Doesn't have mickey ears on it or anything. So what would be the ruling on that one?

 

[WDWFigment]

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.

 

[dmccarty]

I am not a lawyer....

I did not sleep in a certain hotel last night.

But here goes my understanding of photo copyright law.

You take the photo then you own the copyright. But that is not the end of the story.

The question then becomes WHAT did you photograph and WHAT are you going to do with the photo? There are four uses I can think of for the photo.

1 - Your personal use. Its legal.

2 - If the photo is used by a newspaper or another media for NEWS then it is legal to sell the photo.

3 - If you use the photo for "art" it can be sold. Maybe. It depends.

4 - You want to sell the photo to a company for use in advertisements it depends on the subject and do you have/need a release.

The SUBJECT of the photo is important. I cannot take a picture of YOU and then sell it for use in an advertisement nor use it on my website for advertisement unless you have signed a release saying I can use your image. So while I have the copyright of the photo you in essence have the copyright of you.

So if Disney has copyrighted the castle at MK, and I assume they have, you cannot sell the image for use as an advertisement unless Disney says you can.

Selling the image as art is iffy but I think if they have it copyrighted it you need Disney's permission.

I don't know how the law handles animals. I would assume that the animal would have to be readily indentifiable as an individual and who owns copyright would be interesting. For instance I got some pretty good photo 's of the gorrila's at AK. Can I sell them as "art?"

On the other hand I took a much better photo of a butterfly on a flower. Disney does not own the butterfly. Or do they? It was in the butterfly house that Disney built.

I was at the Yacht and Beach club last trip just as the sun was going down. I was in the magic hour. Across the lake the Boardwalk was lit up by the soft yellow light. I got a series of photos of the boardwalk with the lighthouse. Its a really nice photo. The DW want to get a large print and mount it over the TV. Its a good photo but I would put something else over the TV. I guess she likes the photo. It would be legal for us to do so. Selling it online depends on if Disney has copyrighted Boardwalk area and how the law defines art usage.

A weird freaky thing also happened last trip. We got to MK at rope drop. I made a run from Tomorrow Land to try to get FP's in Frontier land which it turns out was not open yet. I got to the front the castle and there was not another guest in front of the castle. There was a CM standing there making sure people did not get past the ropes. I started taking photos of the castle with nobody in front. It was strange. The CM and I looked at each other and we both had never seen the area so empty. Good photo but I would be shocked if I could sell it.

There is a tree in CA that I am sure most American's have seen in photographed. I think it is on a golf course. The tree is next to the ocean on a spit of land. The tree is copyrighted. If you want to use the image you need to get a release from the copyright holder.

Patents and copyrights make companies billions of dollars every year. If a company owns a copyright they have to defend it or risk loosing the copyright.

Later,
Dan

 

[WDWFigment]

I am not a lawyer....

I did not sleep in a certain hotel last night.

But here goes my understanding of photo copyright law.

You take the photo then you own the copyright. But that is not the end of the story.

The question then becomes WHAT did you photograph and WHAT are you going to do with the photo? There are four uses I can think of for the photo.

1 - Your personal use. Its legal.

2 - If the photo is used by a newspaper or another media for NEWS then it is legal to sell the photo.

3 - If you use the photo for "art" it can be sold. Maybe. It depends.

4 - You want to sell the photo to a company for use in advertisements it depends on the subject and do you have/need a release.

The SUBJECT of the photo is important. I cannot take a picture of YOU and then sell it for use in an advertisement nor use it on my website for advertisement unless you have signed a release saying I can use your image. So while I have the copyright of the photo you in essence have the copyright of you.

So if Disney has copyrighted the castle at MK, and I assume they have, you cannot sell the image for use as an advertisement unless Disney says you can.

Selling the image as art is iffy but I think if they have it copyrighted it you need Disney's permission.

I don't know how the law handles animals. I would assume that the animal would have to be readily indentifiable as an individual and who owns copyright would be interesting. For instance I got some pretty good photo 's of the gorrila's at AK. Can I sell them as "art?"

On the other hand I took a much better photo of a butterfly on a flower. Disney does not own the butterfly. Or do they? It was in the butterfly house that Disney built.

I was at the Yacht and Beach club last trip just as the sun was going down. I was in the magic hour. Across the lake the Boardwalk was lit up by the soft yellow light. I got a series of photos of the boardwalk with the lighthouse. Its a really nice photo. The DW want to get a large print and mount it over the TV. Its a good photo but I would put something else over the TV. I guess she likes the photo. It would be legal for us to do so. Selling it online depends on if Disney has copyrighted Boardwalk area and how the law defines art usage.

A weird freaky thing also happened last trip. We got to MK at rope drop. I made a run from Tomorrow Land to try to get FP's in Frontier land which it turns out was not open yet. I got to the front the castle and there was not another guest in front of the castle. There was a CM standing there making sure people did not get past the ropes. I started taking photos of the castle with nobody in front. It was strange. The CM and I looked at each other and we both had never seen the area so empty. Good photo but I would be shocked if I could sell it.

There is a tree in CA that I am sure most American's have seen in photographed. I think it is on a golf course. The tree is next to the ocean on a spit of land. The tree is copyrighted. If you want to use the image you need to get a release from the copyright holder.

Patents and copyrights make companies billions of dollars every year. If a company owns a copyright they have to defend it or risk loosing the copyright.

Later,
Dan

Some of this is right, some of it wrong. Disney likely does have a copyright on the Castle, and that prevents individuals from replicating it architecturally. The Castle is architecture that is visible publically (you can see it without paying to enter the park, so that argument isn't viable--I don't think it would be viable even if you couldn't see it from outside the gates. Disney is essentially a public forum. Difficult to argue otherwise). This is a clear exception to copyright law. Not even a gray area (unless I am overlooking something substantial). You can sell pictures of the Castle. I would hazard a guess that Disney would argue in court that the Castle is its trademark, and as such, your image violates trademark law. I think that argument is likely BS, but I haven't seen any legal precedent one way or the other that is on-point for that matter.

Many of you may have heard of the big ordeal several years back when Mickey Mouse's copyright was about to expire. Essentially, Disney emptied its pockets to have the Copyright Act changed (the Copyright Term Extension Act is pejoratively referred to as "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" among lawyers). A lot of people criticize this, although some Law & Economics (Posner wrote a good piece in the Economist) folks have convincingly argued that Mickey Mouse in the public domain would destroy the character's value (genericide, of sorts). Anyway, the point of this is that Disney takes a very very conservative approach to copyright, and its in house counsel, along with some BigLaw firms Disney has on retainer have ardently defended its copyrights. Often, in Disney's defense of its copyright, Disney is wrong, legally. However, money works to right some legal wrongs, if you know what I mean. In any case, their lawyers are going to give you advice based on the best interests of their client, who is Disney. To do otherwise would be legal malpractice. Don't take the word of a Disney lawyer as the gospel on this matter. You certainly wouldn't go to court without a defense attorney if you were charged with theft, thinking the prosecutor will 'do fair by both parties', why would you take the word of your 'opponent's' lawyers in this circumstance?

I am curious as to what you mean by the tree being copyrighted. A prerequisite for copyright protection is that the object sought to be copyrighted is "minimally creative". This requires that objects be man-made. As such, a tree would not be eligible for copyright protection. Unless I am missing something, this tree could not have copyright protection. Perhaps the land owner just charges people to take pictures of said tree? It also follows from this that Disney does not have a copyright on any of the animals at DAK, besides the human-filled ones.

As for defending a copyright or losing it, that is not true in copyright law. Perhaps you're thinking of Trademark Law? You may remember Xerox waging a public campaign in the 80s to get people to stop using Xerox as a verb. You may also notice that certain words automatically are capitalized when entered into Microsoft Word. That's done for trademark protection and companies do spend a lot on that per year. No one wants to risk losing a trademark to 'genericide'.

 

[WDWFigment]

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.

 

[dmccarty]

I had read in photo copyright discussion years ago that the tree I mentioned was copyright. Is it really? Have know idea.

A single citation of a statue is only part of the equation. The case law is important as well.

To get a good answer to many of the questions in this thread we need a copyright lawyer.

Later,
Dan

 

[WDWFigment]

I had read in photo copyright discussion years ago that the tree I mentioned was copyright. Is it really? Have know idea.

A single citation of a statue is only part of the equation. The case law is important as well.

To get a good answer to many of the questions in this thread we need a copyright lawyer.

Later,
Dan

Case law only clarifies, and not contradicts. There isn't a whole lot to clarify as that section of the code is not 'loosely written'. The case law I do see of import basically revolves around parties establishing that they could have feasibly taken a photo of the architecture from a public location. Note that it is not required that they did take the photo from a public location, but only that they could take a photo from a public location.

Of interest might be the argument that Disney would potentially make that the Castle is both architecture and sculpture. I don't think this is a winner, but it all depends on the Circuit deciding the case. Any sculpture component is likely 'de minimis' compared to the overall architectural work.

You're unlikely to find many specialized copyright lawyers (although there are some). People can apply for a copyright themselves, so there isn't a whole lot of work to do. In house counsel is about as close as you get. Most people can easily apply for a copyright themselves online; it's not like a patent, where the application actually involves a 'prosecution'. You'd be a fool to go through a patent prosecution without a lawyer. However, this is stuff anyone who practices in IP will likely know.

 

[ukcatfan]

One thing Disney does about the "visible from pubic places" part of the law is that the public place ends as you cross the main gate. About the only architecture visible from a public place is the Wide World of Sports.

On a side note, I wonder if people coding GPS info in their EXIF will ever be used against them in a copyright lawsuit?

 

[GrumpyOne]

Please note that there is a difference between copyright and trademark. It's making money by replicating Disney's trademarks that can get you in trouble ... either legally or financially while Disney attempts to push the boundaries of the legal limits.

 

[MICKEY88]

Some of this is right, some of it wrong. Disney likely does have a copyright on the Castle, and that prevents individuals from replicating it architecturally. The Castle is architecture that is visible publically (you can see it without paying to enter the park, so that argument isn't viable--I don't think it would be viable even if you couldn't see it from outside the gates. Disney is essentially a public forum. Difficult to argue otherwise). This is a clear exception to copyright law. Not even a gray area (unless I am overlooking something substantial). You can sell pictures of the Castle. I would hazard a guess that Disney would argue in court that the Castle is its trademark, and as such, your image violates trademark law. I think that argument is likely BS, but I haven't seen any legal precedent one way or the other that is on-point for that matter.

.

disney may be considered a public forum, but it is private property, and although you might be able to see the castle from outside the gate, can you see it from outside disney property,

this debate could go on forever, so this is all i"m going to say, I'be seen this discussion many times on several pro photo boards I frequent, with some imput from attorneys who do photo copyright work, based on those discussions disney would win hands down, without spending a fortune,, basically if the photo of the castle can be taken from a public location, you could sell it, unless disney has it trademarked.., if you are standing on private/disney property to take the photo ypou can not legally sell the photo

 

[MICKEY88]

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.

however the castle is visible only on disney property

 

[jann1033]

One thing Disney does about the "visible from pubic places" part of the law is that the public place ends as you cross the main gate. About the only architecture visible from a public place is the Wide World of Sports.

On a side note, I wonder if people coding GPS info in their EXIF will ever be used against them in a copyright lawsuit?

well it sure would make it harder to claim you weren't on private property when you took it
so if Andy's aforementioned tiger/lion/elephant shot was from AK rather than from the local crazy person who keeps wild/exotic animals backyard it would be pretty apparent

also i think that google earth suit made reference to nothing is really "private" anymore, course that deal more with the couples' right to privacy than their house being a trademark. but don't know how it would equate with aeriel shots or something similar where your tootsies aren't planted on WDW soil when you took the shot

 

[WDWFigment]

One thing Disney does about the "visible from pubic places" part of the law is that the public place ends as you cross the main gate. About the only architecture visible from a public place is the Wide World of Sports.

On a side note, I wonder if people coding GPS info in their EXIF will ever be used against them in a copyright lawsuit?

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.

 

[ukcatfan]

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.

I have to disagree that you can call any part of Disney property a public place. The reason that they maintain that it is private has nothing to do with photography though. It has everything to do with trespass laws. The photography rights they hold just benefit from it. They are much more concerned about keeping protesters, activists, thieves, etc. off their private property than they are about someone selling a castle pic here or there on the Internet.

None of this really matters though because if the Mouse directs its legal muscle on any individual or small business, there is no way that they can afford to fight them. So, anyone wanting to sell photography, save yourself the trouble and don't go to WDW to try to get sellable shots. Just enjoy your vacation.

P.S. I have seen people escorted out of malls for taking pictures. I am not even talking shots that are important, but just snapshots of friends from camera phones.

 

[WDWFigment]

None of this really matters though because if the Mouse directs its legal muscle on any individual or small business, there is no way that they can afford to fight them. So, anyone wanting to sell photography, save yourself the trouble and don't go to WDW to try to get sellable shots. Just enjoy your vacation.

Exactly right, and an important point that shouldn't be overlooked. Right or wrong doesn't much matter if you go broke during the fight (and lose because of it). It's fun to debate for the sake of the argument, though.

 

[raysnkaysmom]

however the castle is visible only on disney property

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....