ethics question

[JR6ooo4]

actually as i said in the part you quoted, i brought up a question that was brought up on another forum, the details and question were not from me, about me or by me( notice it says "you" not "I"). if you assumed something that wasn't true, maybe that is what is confusing you.

also in the part you quoted where i state my personal opinion about the question, i said "half the time i don't know where i took it unless i go through the folder and find some hardscape i recognize so i don't see the harm" .in the case of a flower, i wouldn't know in most instances for sure where it was from, as i repeated in #16 and another one, maybe 34 or 36. in the case of a zoo, our local one doesn't say you need permission, nor do the private non profit arboretum and public green house where i usually take photos of flowers. the one garden locally that does i mentioned already but i don't think i have any photos for sale from there anyway since i have only gone there once in the winter and they mostly had cactus and green plants in their greenhouse, not flowers. we routinely go to botanical gardens if we are on vacation, i could have flowers from them but have no idea what their policies are and for some don't have the original folders since i changed computers and lost some of my original photo folders when i moved them. so to find out the original location of each flower photo i have would be difficult if not impossible. my point is , they are not readily identifiable as to where they were taken. i find it hard to believe anyone is going to look at a rose and say "hey that was taken at so and so " if it's my photo and i don't even know. one article i read said the reason some paid to enter places can say you need permission is because it hurts their business( supposedly) by you showing what they get paid to show...obviously if it's not identifiable as to where it's from, that can't hurt someone's business since no one knows it's from their location. if that were not the case, you couldn't ever sell a photo of anything since might be at some other location in the world where you have to pay to get in.

Sorry, I did forget that you quoted something from another forum. I see your point about your filing system, location not being recorded. Mine are filed by events, like WDW April 08 or Brookfield Zoo Jan 04. I like to know where I took that rose pic, etc..

What if you have all the original files lingering about and they have the EXIF data, and pic 1234666 is of the entry to Brookfield Zoo and 1234685 is of the flower in question and 1234702 is of another recognizable part of the park..... and that is found after the subpoena of your HDs.

I guess what is confusing is what question is being asked?
"Can you sell a photo that you know needs permission to sell, and you do not have permission?"
"Would you sell a photo that you know needs permission to sell, and you do not have permission?"
"Would you sell a photo knowing it needs permission you do not have, since it can't be identified?"

In this economy, I would.

MIkeeee

 

[jann1033]

Sorry, I did forget that you quoted something from another forum. I see your point about your filing system, location not being recorded. Mine are filed by events, like WDW April 08 or Brookfield Zoo Jan 04. I like to know where I took that rose pic, etc..

What if you have all the original files lingering about and they have the EXIF data, and pic 1234666 is of the entry to Brookfield Zoo and 1234685 is of the flower in question and 1234702 is of another recognizable part of the park..... and that is found after the subpoena of your HDs.

I guess what is confusing is what question is being asked?
"Can you sell a photo that you know needs permission to sell, and you do not have permission?"
"Would you sell a photo that you know needs permission to sell, and you do not have permission?"
"Would you sell a photo knowing it needs permission you do not have, since it can't be identified?"

In this economy, I would.

MIkeeee

i guess the supreme court decided the question was "do you need permission to sell a photo that has no discernible location" and they said "no you don't"

 

[MICKEY88]

Tell that to Google.

does google sell pictures..???

 

[ILuvCrush]

very interesting thread ...I'm not a pro, I shot a wedding for a friends son once, only because their photog backed out the day before....but I didn't charge them anything, just gave them all their pics on CDs (they did gave me a 'tip' which was a shock and unexpected)

I don't expect to be in the position to sell photos, but I'm going to keep much of what was mentioned here in the back of my mind....

Thanks
Paula

 

[fitzperry]

i guess the supreme court decided the question was "do you need permission to sell a photo that has no discernible location" and they said "no you don't"

Do you have a link to that case? I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[jann1033]

Do you have a link to that case? I'd be interested in reading it.

this is part of the post this one poster mentioned it in is the "503c" anything that would help?

..."However it is much simpler to quote the US Supreme Court on the issue of "public trusts" and "public display" animals at a zoo are on public display and the zoo receives special tax incentives (503c non-profit, for example) - there is a special disclaimer in copyright law for things in public display. Take for example a movie star appearing in public, it is well settled that a photographer can take a photo of them in that public setting and copyright that photo, these animals are no different. A for profit corporation would also have a problem under these same rules. The only way any of them could claim a trademark or copyright is if (and this is pushing the limits of reason) they trained the animals to pose in some creative way that was exclusive to 'their' exhibition."

is it ok to post a link here to the whole post? i don't know, you might have to be a member to get to the forum but i can pm you the post if you like but that is the only specific number he mentions and i think that might be the tax info?

 

[MICKEY88]

this is part of the post this one poster mentioned it in is the "503c" anything that would help?

..."However it is much simpler to quote the US Supreme Court on the issue of "public trusts" and "public display" animals at a zoo are on public display and the zoo receives special tax incentives (503c non-profit, for example) - there is a special disclaimer in copyright law for things in public display. Take for example a movie star appearing in public, it is well settled that a photographer can take a photo of them in that public setting and copyright that photo, these animals are no different. A for profit corporation would also have a problem under these same rules. The only way any of them could claim a trademark or copyright is if (and this is pushing the limits of reason) they trained the animals to pose in some creative way that was exclusive to 'their' exhibition."

is it ok to post a link here to the whole post? i don't know, you might have to be a member to get to the forum but i can pm you the post if you like but that is the only specific number he mentions and i think that might be the tax info?

I must be missing something here, this only speaks of copyright, not the legal right to use the photo for commercial puposes,

there is a difference between holding copyright to a photo and being able to sell it, or use it for profit in any way

 

[fitzperry]

this is part of the post this one poster mentioned it in is the "503c" anything that would help?

..."However it is much simpler to quote the US Supreme Court on the issue of "public trusts" and "public display" animals at a zoo are on public display and the zoo receives special tax incentives (503c non-profit, for example) - there is a special disclaimer in copyright law for things in public display. Take for example a movie star appearing in public, it is well settled that a photographer can take a photo of them in that public setting and copyright that photo, these animals are no different. A for profit corporation would also have a problem under these same rules. The only way any of them could claim a trademark or copyright is if (and this is pushing the limits of reason) they trained the animals to pose in some creative way that was exclusive to 'their' exhibition."

is it ok to post a link here to the whole post? i don't know, you might have to be a member to get to the forum but i can pm you the post if you like but that is the only specific number he mentions and i think that might be the tax info?

I must be missing something here, this only speaks of copyright, not the legal right to use the photo for commercial puposes,

there is a difference between holding copyright to a photo and being able to sell it, or use it for profit in any way

I agree. The individual's right of publicity seems pretty well-established. If I'm not mistaken, an analogous right as relates to identifiable property is less well-established, but the fact that people assume a property release is necessary would suggest it might be recognized too.

Also, the 503(c) reference in the quoted post from the other board seems to be a reference to the Internal Revenue Code provision for non-profit corporations (though they probably mean 501(c)(3)).

What is still nagging at me is that if one's license to enter a public venue like a zoo or theme park prohibits the sale of photos taken on that property, then even if the subject of the photo is generic and unidentifiable, the agreement is breached when the photo is sold. Obviously proving that the photo was taken there could be a challenge but would be possible in some cases with exif data, etc. It would also be difficult for the venue to prove damages--after all you took the photo, but it's an interesting question.

 

[jann1033]

I agree. The individual's right of publicity seems pretty well-established. If I'm not mistaken, an analogous right as relates to identifiable property is less well-established, but the fact that people assume a property release is necessary would suggest it might be recognized too.

Also, the 503(c) reference in the quoted post from the other board seems to be a reference to the Internal Revenue Code provision for non-profit corporations (though they probably mean 501(c)(3)).

What is still nagging at me is that if one's license to enter a public venue like a zoo or theme park prohibits the sale of photos taken on that property, then even if the subject of the photo is generic and unidentifiable, the agreement is breached when the photo is sold. Obviously proving that the photo was taken there could be a challenge but would be possible in some cases with exif data, etc. It would also be difficult for the venue to prove damages--after all you took the photo, but it's an interesting question.

one thing he mentioned was the difference in public/nonprofit/ private as in zoos, most being non profit or public( figuring that is why neither the public zoo, nonprofit arboretum nor public green house by me have the release policy ) vs private as well as a difference in private but open to public( mall) vs private and paid to enter( wdw).

i think his point as to copyright was in respect to the fact that in a photo of a zoo animal without any distinct information in it to connect it to a particular location the animal couldn't be considered a trademark ( or a copyright , which would of course also apply to a flower, etc, anything not exclusive to that particular venue, so not like Cinderellas' castle which is a trademark and exclusive to wdw) . so since it isn't a copyright issue, what would they charge you with? they could tell you you had to leave ( or "ban you for life") if you were there and they stopped you from taking a photo( but the one i know locally which states this says on their website, "personal photos are fine" so chances are they wouldn't stop you).if it doesn't identify the location, how could it be taking publicity/income away from them or invade their right of privacy( which appears it would not even exist anyway since it's not a person and since they allow personal photos would kind of shoot that down anyway) ? that appears to be the only 3 things i could find they could attempt to sue you for

however interestingly i had just taken a photo of the rock and roll hall of fame, never thought that was a trademark but it is so guess i won't be leaving that one on my website and there are tons of photos of that all over flicker....which also interestingly, i read it makes no difference if you sell it or give it away, just using it still would be a copyright violation( that was straight from a legal article on copyright...so i know that one is right,.) something else to think/worry about.

and wonder how the Fairey poster would affect this whole issue...it's legal for him to change a copyrighted photo with recognizable ownership and sell it but it would be illegal to to take a photo of a non copyright object with no recognizable ownership and sell it? somehow that seems kind of "off"

 

[MICKEY88]

trademark and copyright are 2 different things,

Cinderellas castle is trademarked, but the pictures I took of it are copyrighted by me the moment I trip the shutter,

as for the zoo allowing personal photos. that is different than commercial photos.

Disney allows personal photos, but you certainly can't sell them without authorization, you can photograph all the people in the parade, but I woun't try selling them without a release..

( that was straight from a legal article on copyright...so i know that one is right,.)

not neccessarily so... the pros on other boards I frequent will always state, that you can't trust what you read online, and to not even trust an attorney unless they specialize in photography copyright law...since there are so many grey areas..

 

[jann1033]

trademark and copyright are 2 different things,

Cinderellas castle is trademarked, but the pictures I took of it are copyrighted by me the moment I trip the shutter,

which is why he included both in his comment. in the case of an animal/flower it would be a trademark only if it were exclusive or trained to do something exclusive to the venue

as for the zoo allowing personal photos. that is different than commercial photos. never said it wasn't but my point being, since they allow photos they probably aren't going to tell you to leave for taking them so trespassing probably wouldn't be an issue

Disney allows personal photos, but you certainly can't sell them without authorization, you can photograph all the people in the parade, but I woun't try selling them without a release..

i never said you should or would but has nothing to do with what i said


not neccessarily so... the pros on other boards I frequent will always state, that you can't trust what you read online, and to not even trust an attorney unless they specialize in photography copyright law...since there are so many grey areas..
it was specifically dealing with photographic law

i just put my answers into your quote to lessen confusion but truthfully i am kind of sick of this topic so don't take it personal if i skip this thread from now on. i've done quite a bit of research on it both recently and before, enough that i think i can make a pretty informed decision for myself, and i don't really care anymore what anyone else does or doesn't do, thinks or doesn't think.

 

[bnorm27]

Can you re-use your refillable mugs during your next visit???? Oooops! Sorry, wrong ethical dilemma!

 

[maccagerl]

i think his point as to copyright was in respect to the fact that in a photo of a zoo animal without any distinct information in it to connect it to a particular location the animal couldn't be considered a trademark ( or a copyright ,...
however interestingly i had just taken a photo of the rock and roll hall of fame, never thought that was a trademark but it is so guess i won't be leaving that one on my website and there are tons of photos of that all over flicker....which also interestingly, i read it makes no difference if you sell it or give it away, just using it still would be a copyright violation( that was straight from a legal article on copyright...so i know that one is right,.) something else to think/worry about.

and wonder how the Fairey poster would affect this whole issue...it's legal for him to change a copyrighted photo with recognizable ownership and sell it but it would be illegal to to take a photo of a non copyright object with no recognizable ownership and sell it? somehow that seems kind of "off"

Whoa!
You are confusing the issues of copyright, trademark, and model release.

Copyright:
As a photographer, the moment you create a photo by pressing your shutter button, that photo is copyrighted to you ( for the purposes of this discussion , not getting into work for hire, etc).
That means that you own the rights to that photo. No one else can use that photo without your express permission. It doesn't matter if they are using it to make money or just using it on their myspace page, legally they cannot use your image unless they have your permission.

Trademark:
This is when a company registers an image that is associated with their business- like the image of Mickey Mouse - which means if you have an exterminating business and you want to use an image of Mickey Mouse on your business card, signage, etc, you would have to get permission from the Disney corporation, because they own the trademark.

Model/Property Release:
This is a signed release from any recognizeable persons or the owners of any recognizeable landmarks/buildings in your photo giving you permission to use their images for commercial use.
So , if you were to stand across the street and take a photo of me mowing my lawn, you would own the copyright to that photo the minute you pressed the shutter.
You could legally sell that photo to the local paper for editorial use without my permission.
If you were going to use that photo in an ad for your lawncare business, you would have to obtain a signed release form ( model release) from me giving you permission to use that photo commercially, and you are supposed to give compensation for the model release ( $1, $1000, a free photo, whatever you and the person agree to in the signed release).
Now if I was wearing a t shirt with a recognizable WDW logo on it, and this appeared in the ad for your business, WD corp might have a problem with that and might sue you for using their trademark.

That is the very basic outline in a nutshell.

 

[maccagerl]

Can you re-use your refillable mugs during your next visit???? Oooops! Sorry, wrong ethical dilemma!

Only when you're pool-hopping!

 

[MICKEY88]

 

[webshark3]

does google sell pictures..???

Worse. Google sells "you". But in relation to this; indirectly:

Google photographs your house. You use the Google Map service to view a address, and your house photo pops up. The whole service is free to use, but is ad supported. Google is making money off providing streetviews which contain your house.

Lots of debate over it, but right now, I think technically legal.

Some areas are fighting back:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090403.wgtgoogview0403/BNStory/Technology