No photo of a photo allowed?

[dqpowell]

what about if you want a photo of a character? and what if kids are in the pic you are going to take are not yours? i thought i read somewhere way back on the disney side of this forum that the CMs have told people taking pics of the characters not to take them if they were not related to you.

This is more of a gray area, because you're talking about WDW policy and not the law. (i.e., The law states that if somebody is in a public place or a functional equivalent, they may be photographed.)

If that really is Disney's policy -- that you can't take a picture of a character when somebody unrelated to you is with the characters -- then it's de facto unenforceable. People take pics of characters thousands of times every day. It's certain that somebody unrelated will be in the frame.

The CMs do try to limit how many people are snapping pics of the characters at one time, but I think it's more about not screwing up the photopass photographer's pics (and parents of the children meeting the characters) with too much flash, etc. They don't say that's the reason, but there's no other practical reason for it.

For what it's worth, there's no point arguing with CMs who tell you not to take photos of the characters. You are on their property and they may eject you for any reason. So if you're asked to stop taking photos when children unrelated to you are meeting the characters, just stop and wait for a moment when children are (briefly) out of the frame.

David

 

[GetGlowing]

Don't know if it's an actual Disney policy, but if so, it's not due to copyright issues, it's due to crazy creepy taking pictures of kids who aren't their own.

 

[dqpowell]

Don't know if it's an actual Disney policy, but if so, it's not due to copyright issues, it's due to crazy creepy taking pictures of kids who aren't their own.

Do you really think you can take more than a couple photos at WDW and not have somebody unrelated to you in the frame? There's no law against taking pictures of people in public places (or the functional equivalent of a public place, such as WDW). That policy, if it does exist, is unenforceable. It is violated millions of times a day.

David

 

[Rip]

Copyright law is IMHO just plain silly. As are all so-called "intellectual property" laws including trademarks and patents. To claim that something intellectual is someone's property is like saying that someone owns the thoughts in your head.

One of the best ways to detect a ridiculous law is if it is completely unenforceable. If you really tried to follow the letter of the copyright law you would be unable to do anything on the internet, or take pictures of almost anything you see when you're out and about, and you wouldn't be able to share any books or articles with anyone or do any scholarship. You could not back anything up or take pictures of many of your possessions for insurance (or any other purpose). If the copyright zealots had they way they would spy on everything that people do on the internet, or rather force the ISPs to spy on all their customers, and send SWAT teams to knock down the door and drag off to jail anyone whose teenager downloaded a song with uTorrent (*cough* not that I know what uTorrent is, I just made up a name out of nothing).

[I don't want to derail the thread too much into politics or anything, but if you find these statements outrageous (or intriguing) then I recommend that you take it up with the folks who have put a lot of thought into this at mises.org.]

But what is quite reasonable, is to make it one of the conditions of entering someone's private property, that you will follow their rules of behavior or risk ejection. It's reasonable to say, "If you want to visit us then we can take your picture and you can't take a picture of our picture." However it's kind of dumb to yell at people for taking pictures in a theme park if they're not blocking traffic. They would make a lot more money off their pictures if they treated picture snappers with kindly indulgence and priced their own pictures more reasonably, like the $3 emailed version someone mentioned above. After all, when you snap a picture off a screen you're getting a fairly blurry shot (I, ah, heard). All the attendants have to say is "Hi, if you don't get a good shot off the screen we could email it to you for $3." I would buy several of those every trip, but I'm not going to buy any more $20 plus "packages" from WDW. Too expensive, too much trouble to wait for it to be printed, too much hassle to carry it around.

Ha, I knew from the first paragraph you were an "Austrian".

 

[GetGlowing]

Do you really think you can take more than a couple photos at WDW and not have somebody unrelated to you in the frame? There's no law against taking pictures of people in public places (or the functional equivalent of a public place, such as WDW). That policy, if it does exist, is unenforceable. It is violated millions of times a day.

David

No, of course not. But if someone stands by a character greeting spot and takes pictures of the little girls and boys long enough ... I'm just saying, you can probably tell the difference between someone taking snapshots and stalking little kids. And I'm not saying it happens all the time. But I'm sure it's something CMs keep an eye out for.

 

[Mtnman44]

it is laughable that people are getting all morally outraged over taking a picture of a publicly displayed monitor. I seriously doubt this rises to the level of a copyright violation. What are the damages? Does anyone seriously think they lose a sale whenever anyone takes a pic of the screen? I'd love to see the "artist" explain the nature of their "intellectual property". No one wanting a $25 photo considers this an adaquete alternative. Again, if they deem these displayed images as valuable property, not to be photographed, then the reasonable thing is to not display them. Am I not allowed to take pictures at an art museum as well? Seriously, this is silly.

ETA: I think this could fall under the fair use area. As long as it does not infringe. To be an infringement, it would have to impact the potential market for the work in question. As the potential market of one of these screen shots is at most, the four or so people in the picture, that is pretty limited. Then, one would have to show that a cell phone picture robs the company of the sale of one of their ride photos. Since I can only imagine that 99%+ of riders never purchase a picture, this is a tough case to make.

Copyright isn't a "card." It's the law, and I (as a part-time professional photographer) am glad that my work can't be legally stolen using the kind of self-interested rationalizations displayed in the previous two posts.

I mean come on... "If they don't want photos taken of their "intellectual property", then don't display them." How can you write something like that and expect to be taken seriously?

David

 

[GetGlowing]

Actually, you can be prohibited from photographing art in museums. It varies by museum or collection. Or you may only be allowed to photograph after signing an agreement that your work is strictly for personal use. I've done that before.

 

[MaumeeMom]

it is laughable that people are getting all morally outraged over taking a picture of a publicly displayed monitor. I seriously doubt this rises to the level of a copyright violation. What are the damages? Does anyone seriously think they lose a sale whenever anyone takes a pic of the screen? I'd love to see the "artist" explain the nature of their "intellectual property". No one wanting a $25 photo considers this an adaquete alternative. Again, if they deem these displayed images as valuable property, not to be photographed, then the reasonable thing is to not display them. Am I not allowed to take pictures at an art museum as well? Seriously, this is silly.

ETA: I think this could fall under the fair use area. As long as it does not infringe. To be an infringement, it would have to impact the potential market for the work in question. As the potential market of one of these screen shots is at most, the four or so people in the picture, that is pretty limited. Then, one would have to show that a cell phone picture robs the company of the sale of one of their ride photos. Since I can only imagine that 99%+ of riders never purchase a picture, this is a tough case to make.

As pointed out by GetGlowing, many art museums prohibit photography in the galleries, especially anything modern. On recent works there would be numerous levels of copyright from the Artist to the Museum and maybe even the Owner of the piece if it is on loan.

As a person who temporarily made her living as a museum photographer, I understand the value of the copyright laws. Unfortunately, there are people who will never understand them. Mostly, it is the "I want what I want and will get it for free no matter what" people who are so anti-copyright laws.

Just out of curiosity, Mtnman44, why do you think you should be allowed to get the picture for free? Just because it is low quality? The company running the photo booth has spent money to create that photo, taking it without compensating them is stealing plain and simple. Someone had to purchase and install the cameras, pay to maintain and run them, pay for staff to run the operation, etc., etc.

Would you go into a grocery store and eat the day old donuts without paying for them? They are low quality, they would be tossed if they don't sell. Hopefully, your answer is no, you would not steal the day old donuts because the grocery store had invested in those donuts and were offering them for sale at a specific price. Same thing with the pictures from the rides. The pictures were created using equipment paid for by the company who runs this service. The staff selling the pictures needs to be compensated. The pictures on the monitor are just samples to entice you to purchase the real photo, just as the donuts are displayed in the bakery case to entice you to purchase some.

It is not so much about infringement as fair compensation for creation. PP wrote: "...a cell phone picture robs the company of the sale of one of their ride photos." Exactly! If one takes a cell phone picture in lieu of purchasing a photo it is stealing. The company is not compensated for the creation of that work, regardless of the quality or intended use of that cell phone picture.

 

[Mtnman44]

I don't think I should be allowed to get a picture for free. If I want one, I should buy it. However, if there is something interesting to me, publicly displayed on a monitor or a sign or whatever, I don't think that snapping a cell phone pic of it rises to the level of STEALING. A picture of a TV screen is not the same as what they are selling, not even close.

There is something in copyright law called fair use. check it out. This also applies things such as sculptures and art in museums. Taking a photo of David for personal use in your vacation album is not a copyright violation. Now if the museum, as private property, chooses not to allow cameras, well that is their right.

However, my whole point from the begninng was not to argue granular details of copyright law (and I am not an expert on this, nor anything close to it). I remember reading a while back that the copyright owners of the song "Happy Birthday to You" wanted to receive royalties for any businesses that performed this in public (think restaurants). This situation is similar. They may have the right technically, but really what is the point?

Even if it is actually a total infringement (but again, what are the actual damages?), my real point was that this is a very petty thing for them to do. Regardless of copywright law, it seems more than reasonable to allow these paying theme park guests the opportunity to take a very cheap, low low quality picture of the monitor. I contend that this does not affect sales, as anyone who actually wants a decent picture and wants to pay $20+ for it, will not all all be satified taking a phone picture instead. Rather than rudely block guests' views and stare them down as if having a camera in a theme park is akin to shoplifting, they should take the monitors down and allow guests wishing to view their ride photo to do so privately at the counter. I've also already suggested a good idea to turn all those cell phones into moneymakers.

Just out of curiosity, Mtnman44, why do you think you should be allowed to get the picture for free? Just because it is low quality? The company running the photo booth has spent money to create that photo, taking it without compensating them is stealing plain and simple. Someone had to purchase and install the cameras, pay to maintain and run them, pay for staff to run the operation, etc., etc.
QUOTE]

 

[MaumeeMom]

I'll break this down to make my point a little more clear. Taking a cell phone picture of the monitor displaying an image that is for sale is stealing.

I don't think I should be allowed to get a picture for free. If I want one, I should buy it. However, if there is something interesting to me, publicly displayed on a monitor or a sign or whatever, I don't think that snapping a cell phone pic of it rises to the level of STEALING.

You seem to contradict your self:
"I don't think I should be allowed to get a picture for free." and "I don't think that snapping a cell phone pic of it rises to the level of STEALING." You shouldn't get the pic for free but if you don't pay for it it isn't stealing.

A picture of a TV screen is not the same as what they are selling, not even close.

No, it is meant to be a sample of the image - a proof so to speak.

There is something in copyright law called fair use. check it out.

I'm very familiar with copyright law and "fair use" which is mostly used as an exemption for educational use. Here is some information from Wikipedia:
"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship."
Personal use just because you wanted to have an item for free is not covered by the fair use doctrine.

This also applies things such as sculptures and art in museums. Taking a photo of David for personal use in your vacation album is not a copyright violation. Now if the museum, as private property, chooses not to allow cameras, well that is their right.

Depending on the work of art, it may be covered by copyright law and snapping a vacation photo of it may be a violation. Often there will be a sign in the Modern galleries of the Museums stating no photography just for that very reason. Under "fair use" a teacher may show a slide of a work in her classroom without compensating the Museum which owns that work because it is for educational use.

However, my whole point from the begninng was not to argue granular details of copyright law (and I am not an expert on this, nor anything close to it). I remember reading a while back that the copyright owners of the song "Happy Birthday to You" wanted to receive royalties for any businesses that performed this in public (think restaurants). This situation is similar. They may have the right technically, but really what is the point?

Even if it is actually a total infringement (but again, what are the actual damages?), my real point was that this is a very petty thing for them to do. Regardless of copywright law, it seems more than reasonable to allow these paying theme park guests the opportunity to take a very cheap, low low quality picture of the monitor. I contend that this does not affect sales, as anyone who actually wants a decent picture and wants to pay $20+ for it, will not all all be satified taking a phone picture instead. Rather than rudely block guests' views and stare them down as if having a camera in a theme park is akin to shoplifting, they should take the monitors down and allow guests wishing to view their ride photo to do so privately at the counter. I've also already suggested a good idea to turn all those cell phones into moneymakers.

It is an infringement. The damages come from loss of revenue. The company has paid for the creation of the image with intent to sell it. If you take that image without compensating them for the creation it is stealing.

I'll go back to my donut analogy. Lets say the donuts are displayed on a tray on the bakery counter. You can't just go take a bite out of the donut to sample it and then not buy that donut. The bakery spent money to create that donut with intent to sell it at a certain price. Just because you took a small bite and didn't get the full flavor of the donut and didn't share it with anyone else, does not make it right to sample the donut for free. Taking that bite and not buying the whole donut is stealing. The bakery also should not be forced to move the donut display to be hidden behind the counter just so you aren't tempted to sample one.

The picture on the monitor is on display for you to decide whether you want to purchase a print or not. Taking a picture of the that image for your personal use is still wrong as the company has lost revenue generated from selling the prints.

You may not intend to buy the picture but some people may substitute the cell phone picture for a purchase. You believe this is a petty thing, well you are entitled to your opinion but the law is the law and that image is covered.

 

[Mtnman44]

I competely disagree that taking a picture of the monitor has robbed anyone of income or increased costs for the park. I will walk by and not purchase a photo, or I will walk by a snap a pic to be laughed at for a few minutes with my family and then deleted. That's it. In either scenario, the parks gets NO REVENUE from me. People that purchase photos are in another scenario entirely. I'll leave it at that. This is very petty.

 

[ccgirl]

Disney does not allow you to do it either. I have tried and I always get "caught". I now just purchase the photo CD and any ride pictures I want.

 

[MaumeeMom]

I competely disagree that taking a picture of the monitor has robbed anyone of income or increased costs for the park. I will walk by and not purchase a photo, or I will walk by a snap a pic to be laughed at for a few minutes with my family and then deleted. That's it. In either scenario, the parks gets NO REVENUE from me. People that purchase photos are in another scenario entirely. I'll leave it at that. This is very petty.

The problem with this rationale is that not everyone will just laugh and delete the picture. There was a PP who had a Photopass order cancelled because they tried to use one in their book.

The potential for theft is there so they have to protect against it, therefore, no cell phone photos are allowed.

 

[Lewisc]

Disney also prohibits guests from taking pictures of the ride photos displayed on the videos.

The poster who said Disney allows this behavior is mistaken.

The poster who thinks doing such is a fair use exemption doesn't have the slightest idea what he/she is talking about.

Disney gives you the choice, buy the pictures or don't. They don't give you the option of using your camera or cell phone to take a lower quality picture for free.

 

[Magix]

It seems the only people who have a real understanding of copyright are those of us who are (or have been) photographers. I really get sick of people who have never read a single bit of copyright law trying to tell me that I don't understand the law. Go read it, then we'll talk.

 

[TaylorsDad]

How is taking a picture of a picture any different than taking a cam of a movie. Both copies are inferior. Both potentially negatively impact the intended profit margin. And both are wrong in my opinion.

 

[phamton]

How is taking a picture of a picture any different than taking a cam of a movie. Both copies are inferior. Both potentially negatively impact the intended profit margin. And both are wrong in my opinion.

I completely agree with you, TaylorsDad. There is no difference. You can't make a video of a movie at the theater and you can't take a picture of the ride photo at either Disney or Universal. Even if you totally disregard copyright laws, it is the prerogative of the themepark to set the rules at their respective parks.

 

[Rip]

I completely agree with you, TaylorsDad. There is no difference. You can't make a video of a movie at the theater and you can't take a picture of the ride photo at either Disney or Universal. Even if you totally disregard copyright laws, it is the prerogative of the themepark to set the rules at their perspective parks.

Bingo. I'm not a fan of IP laws in the least, but the owners of the property on which you voluntarily enter have every right to set whatever rules they see fit.

 

[NYDisneyKid]

Apples to oranges. Also, it is "copyright" not "copywrite".

at least i can admit im not as smart as some 5th graders on here. hahaha

 

[Lewisc]

A couple of posters are making apples to oranges comparisons.

The closest comparison would be if a customer walked into a newsstand and used a camera to take a picture of a few pages of a newspaper or magazine. Why pay for the newspaper when I only want to read one article/just the front page? I'm not depriving anyone of revenue. I wouldn't have bought the item. I'm getting a poor quality copy of part of the paper.

Maybe the OP also thinks that behavior would also be OK.

The OP said Disney allows guests to take pictures of the ride photo monitors. A couple of posters were able to correct that piece of misinformation.

I can sort of understand a guest who scans and makes an extra copy of the ride photo when he gets home. It's not easy (is it even possible) to purchase extra copies when you get home. That person at least paid for a print. Still a violation of copyright but I can sort of understand that way of thinking.

I can't understand why a person who paid ZERO thinks it's OK to take a copy of an image that's for sale. No way to justify it. The ride picture system cost money to install and maintain.