Need urgent advice on copyright

[dburg30]

I guess if you substitute the hawk with a photo of his wife - it would be wrong to find it in any store's drawer pasted on a calendar - LOL Totally creepy - LOL

Did anyone see the movie "One Hour Photo"? LOL

But if it was a very good picture, that showed how well prints look when printed there, is that 'creepy'. Now maybe that's the point it becomes commercial, as even if they dont sell it, they could use it to make money? Yes they should've asked, but I'm still curious about that.

 

[manning]

OK, all you copyright smarty pants

Here's one.

Let's say I take an awesome picture of Cindy's castle while at WDW. What are my rights then?

I mean I know I have certain rights on the photo, but what about the subject of my photo, which is of course, I would guess a registered trademark or whatever. Are you allowed to sell photos that you take like that? (not that you need to buy them as there are millions of those pics out there).

Also, as per the OP's question, even though they printed it and had it, if they werent going to sell it, is it still against the law to have a copy of it? Or what is the difference between someone like my sitting at home, I find a picture I LOVE on the web. I print it out and have it hanging on my wall, or I personally make a calendar out of it and hang it at my desk at work. What's really the difference here? Or is it the commercial store vs my personal usage??

You are on Disney property, they have control.

Kind of a funny quirk of the law. As an example

If you took a picture of a house and are standing in the street (public property) you control the use of the picture.

If you took the same picture standing on the owners property the owner controls the use of the picture.


That's the law.

The person who owns the copy right is entitled to compensation even if you made a copy for your own use. It is considered stealing, you failed to pay him/her for their work.

Again he/she controls the use.

 

[AndrewWG]

By the ***-backwards run around you got - I can only guess it was Wally World. LOL

That's a great shot - you are correct in that I have a Canon S3 - I will now be on the lookout for some nice local scenes to photograph too - and maybe I'll catch a hawk too - what's funny is our elem, middle and high school mascot is the HAWK - of course other than flying in the sky - the only time I've seen one is last week when one was sitting in our crepe myrtle tree - it looked so out of place since it was gargantuan - and all the other birds were wigging out - I got a totally crappy photo because I took it from my daughter's bedroom through the window and screen (which could use some cleaning LOL). Sunsets over the marsh/bridges are another thing to consider trying to get shots of - people always like that sort of thing - with palm trees dark and outlined by bright sunset backgrounds - can you tell I'm getting ideas from the "pretty skies" thread? Just gotta figure out an easily recognizable local landmark - in our little town as well as our city (Charleston SC - that's an easy one though LOL). Now I'll be hunting for a hawk. Hope you don't think I stole your idea - you did inspire me though (although I'm sure I'll never catch a darn one).

Yep, Wally World it is.

I hope you get a nice shot of a hawk! You aren't stealing my idea at all. It wasn't an idea at all, in fact, it was just my luck that I had my camera that day and I had a cooperating hawk. I don't see all that many around here but this one was a juvenile and just sat in the tree while I stood below it and snapped away. That was how they came out so well. Actually, I have been trying for as long as I have used a camera in my life to get a nice pic of a hawk or osprey and they always stunk, so this photo and many like it (I took about 200-250 shots of it) are special to me.

You are right though. I would have been flattered if they had done the right thing and contacted me and let me know what they had hoped to do with my photo. That's all it would have taken for me to say "sure!", but they didn't.

Andy

 

[AndrewWG]

But if it was a very good picture, that showed how well prints look when printed there, is that 'creepy'. Now maybe that's the point it becomes commercial, as even if they dont sell it, they could use it to make money? Yes they should've asked, but I'm still curious about that.

Well, that's it. They should have asked. They did not have my permission to print it at all. I'm just glad that it appears that they weren't mass producing it or anything and it seems as though it was limited to those 2 prints that they made. I just wish they hadn't been in the process of throwing them out because I was going to grab them and tell them "my picture, my property" and at least got the 2 prints out of it. It did look nice on the calendar. Also, I'm glad it was a picture of a hawk and not my wife! That would have been creepy to see my wife on a calendar in Wally Worlds drawer. Or my DD? Those are the reasons I went in to bust them on it. If they did it to me, where does it end? They could use anyone's pictures.

Andy

 

[Geoff_M]

Let's say I take an awesome picture of Cindy's castle while at WDW. What are my rights then?

I mean I know I have certain rights on the photo, but what about the subject of my photo, which is of course, I would guess a registered trademark or whatever. Are you allowed to sell photos that you take like that? (not that you need to buy them as there are millions of those pics out there).

As you've hinted, there are a couple of legal concepts in play here. From the copyright perspective, the copyright is yours. It doesn't matter where you are. You don't give up your copyrights once you step off of public property.

However, assuming that Cindy's castle is a registered trademark of The Walt Disney Co., then you would still own the copyright to the image, but you would be prohibited from commercially exploiting any images that contain the castle without TWDC permission. A prime example used to be the famous "Lone Cypress Tree" (which died and was removed some years ago) at the famed Pebble Beach golf course. That tree was a trademark of the company that owned the course and they would take legal action against anyone that attempted to sell images that contained the tree.

So the bottom line is that the photo of Cindy's is "yours". You can make all of the prints (and give them away too) of such photos as you want. But it you decided to try and sell posters of your photo of the castle and such, you could get a nastygram from Disney's legal department (again, assuming the likeness of the castle is trademarked). But this would be a trademark violation and not a copyright violation.

Also, as per the OP's question, even though they printed it and had it, if they werent going to sell it, is it still against the law to have a copy of it?

Commercial exploitation is not a requirement for copyright violation. If it were, then every peer-to-peer file sharing network would be able to operate in the open without threat of legal action. That's one of the top copyright myths.... "It's legal as long as I don't sell it."

 

[ukcatfan]

OK, all you copyright smarty pants

Here's one.

Let's say I take an awesome picture of Cindy's castle while at WDW. What are my rights then?

I mean I know I have certain rights on the photo, but what about the subject of my photo, which is of course, I would guess a registered trademark or whatever. Are you allowed to sell photos that you take like that? (not that you need to buy them as there are millions of those pics out there).

You are on Disney property, they have control.

Kind of a funny quirk of the law. As an example

If you took a picture of a house and are standing in the street (public property) you control the use of the picture.

If you took the same picture standing on the owners property the owner controls the use of the picture.


That's the law.

The person who owns the copy right is entitled to compensation even if you made a copy for your own use. It is considered stealing, you failed to pay him/her for their work.

Again he/she controls the use.

I know you are just talking hypothetical, but I actually have a little inside knowledge on this. I have a CM friend and this issue came up in his orientation session. If asked, CMs are instructed to inform guests that any picture taken of anything identifiable as Disney property is not sellable without written permission from Disney legal and that is virtually impossible to get without a merchandising agreement. They have their copyrights so strongly guarded that you cannot even get away with taking a shot from off their property and selling it. This basically means that almost no photographer is going to be able to legally sell any images. About your only legal option is to try to get an agreement to sell them through their stores, but they would have to be some pretty incredible shots. You still hold the copyright to your images, but the subject matter is also protected. For example, if someone at Disney saw an image of yours on the web, they would not be able to use it without paying you. Both parties are protected.

Kevin

 

[SharonLowe]

OK, all you copyright smarty pants

Here's one.

Let's say I take an awesome picture of Cindy's castle while at WDW. What are my rights then?

I mean I know I have certain rights on the photo, but what about the subject of my photo, which is of course, I would guess a registered trademark or whatever. Are you allowed to sell photos that you take like that? (not that you need to buy them as there are millions of those pics out there).

Also, as per the OP's question, even though they printed it and had it, if they werent going to sell it, is it still against the law to have a copy of it? Or what is the difference between someone like my sitting at home, I find a picture I LOVE on the web. I print it out and have it hanging on my wall, or I personally make a calendar out of it and hang it at my desk at work. What's really the difference here? Or is it the commercial store vs my personal usage??

You really should not be printing/using photos you see on the web unless you have the person's permission. You might be using it for personal use, but that person also might be selling that image to others so you are depriving him/her of their livelihood. I sell my photos both as prints and for stock and if I catch someone using one without my permission, I ask for money or for them to stop using it. I now tend to at least put my copyright on them so I get credit if I can't stop people from using them. Most images you find on the web won't print well because they will be such a low resolution but many people snarf them to use on their web pages or as screen savers.

 

[MICKEY88]

You are on Disney property, they have control.

Kind of a funny quirk of the law. As an example

If you took a picture of a house and are standing in the street (public property) you control the use of the picture.

If you took the same picture standing on the owners property the owner controls the use of the picture.


.

it is best however to get a property release before publishing or selling such a picture..

the example I was given is this...

you take a pic of john does house, you sell it to a stock agency, they in turn sell it to someone doing a news story on meth labs in the USA.

the owner of the house sees their house pictured with the article, they can sue for libel, the pic is traced back to you, you are now part of the lawsuit.


{Conclusion

Regretfully, there are no guarantees that an identifiable person or owner of property in a photograph would threaten to or bring a legal action for publishing a particular photograph. Therefore, the only way a publisher can be almost risk free from such lawsuit is by obtaining a written release from any person(s) or owner(s) of property that appear in a photograph.



the above quote was taken frrom this page...http://www.publaw.com/photo.html}

 

[fitzperry]

Would you feel "flattered" if you found that a thief had decided that your car was nice enough to steal???

Totally different. I didn't make the car.

 

[SharonLowe]

You are on Disney property, they have control.

Kind of a funny quirk of the law. As an example

If you took a picture of a house and are standing in the street (public property) you control the use of the picture.

If you took the same picture standing on the owners property the owner controls the use of the picture.

No stock agency would take that photo for anything other than editorial use without a property release no matter where you were standing. The house is someone's property and therefore you need permission if you want to sell it for commercial purposes. Same goes for their pets. A news agency could use the photo but even they normally want permission.

 

[Geoff_M]

Totally different. I didn't make the car.

Not really, both are my property (one physical and the other intellectual). But if it'll matter to you, make the car a hot rod that you've custom built!

 

[fitzperry]

Not really, both are my property (one physical and the other intellectual)

But that's the difference. The intellectual property is something I created, and I must admit that I like it when people like my work, even low-down thiefs. Obviously I wouldn't want my work stolen, but I can understand why Andrew is a little flattered as well as pi**ed. It's sort of a twist on the old adage that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

But if it'll matter to you, make the car a hot rod that you've custom built!

A little hard for me to relate to, as I drive a Toyota Highlander filled with Polly Pockets, toy horses, various candy wrappers, water bottles . . . . you get the idea.

 

[manning]

No stock agency would take that photo for anything other than editorial use without a property release no matter where you were standing. The house is someone's property and therefore you need permission if you want to sell it for commercial purposes. Same goes for their pets. A news agency could use the photo but even they normally want permission.

True, the agency is being smart in what they do.

I'm coming from what the law allows.

 

[SharonLowe]

True, the agency is being smart in what they do.

I'm coming from what the law allows.

The law doesn't allow it though. If you sell those photos for commercial purposes and the owner finds out, he/she can sue you and would win. It is a different story for public buildings other than those who have registered their buildings such as the Chrysler Building in NY.