PDA

View Full Version : Was asked to DELETE a photo today!



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9

Monito
07-11-2011, 09:25 PM
As to the exterior of buildings being protected by copyright in parts of Canada - really? Wow.

Nope. Really not.

2F/2F
07-11-2011, 09:56 PM
Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies. Not even for private, nonommercial purposes. I was in the grill one day when someone was taking photos and the manager walked out and politely asked the person to delete the files or turn over the film and he;d process it an send the photos taken that were not of the building plus pay for a replacement roll. The person told the manager to buzz off and within a few minutes an officer approached and suggested the person take the offer or accompany him to the local station. The person handed over the roll and his address and received what looked like a $10 bill. I asked the manager about the incident and he told me the building was copyrighted as an image and taking a photo of it without permission was an criminal offence. I then asked it they would give permission and his response was if for noncommerical use, no problem but othewise there was a fee for a shooting permit. Up here many places seem to have similar requirements including public parks. I was once approached while shooting downtown by a security guard of a building exterior I was photographing. He said that he was to make inquiries of a person if a tripod was used or what appeared to be a professional camera. He was not totally convinced I was not a professional as I had the Meastro tripod (yes, it was my field tripod and has been for some 20 years) as well as my Bronica system and the Polaroid Pack camera, think it was the 180. However, he just said okay when I handed him my business card showing I was a senior employee of a big 4 accounting firm but suggested I lose the tripod in the future.

These are the possible scenarios:

1. The person was shooting from public property. The person has done nothing illegal. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

2. The person was shooting from private property that is considered a public space (e.g. a shopping mall or a private alleyway), and that has no signs prohibiting photography. The person has done nothing illegal, because even though the property is private, it is treated by the law as a public space. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

3. The person was shooting from private property that is not considered a public space (e.g. the lobby of a high rise or somebody's back yard), with no signs prohibiting photography. The person was then asked by the building owner not to shoot, and complied. The person has done nothing illegal, because according to the law, it can be assumed that photography is allowed on private property unless signs or people clearly prohibit it. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

4. The person was shooting from private property that is not considered a public space (e.g. the lobby of a high rise or somebody's back yard), with no signs prohibiting photography. The person was then asked by the building owner not to shoot, and did not comply. The person may be issued a trespassing ticket by the police for breaking stated rules on private property (a misdemeanor offense, and a non-arrestable one in this circumstance, barring lipping off to the officer). The person owns the photos. Any attempt to confiscate them by the property owner is coercion. If the photos are taken by the property owner, it is theft. The police may confiscate the pictures for use as evidence in court, but the photos remain the property of the shooter, and the police may not destroy them, damage them, or give them to the property owner.

5. The person was shooting from private property, and there were "no photography; private property" signs, or the like. Same as above, beginning with, "The person may be issued..."

In every case, the person owns the photos, even if the way he or she got them involved breaking the law. Under no circumstances may photos (i.e. the shooter's property in all cases) be permanently taken from the shooter, damaged, destroyed, or given away. And there is only one case in which anyone may confiscate the photos even temporarily; the police may take them as evidence of a crime. That's it!

People need to learn their highest government-granted liberties, or have them taken away by both private parties and other government bodies. It's their choice which they want. Let's just hope they remember that their choice affects everybody in the society, not just them. The fellow allowing that to happen was at best a display of ignorance, and at worst a display of selfishness – saving one's own hide out of momentary fear, while sacrificing the greater good. Every time something like that happens, one more piece of sand washes off the mountain that represents the fundamental liberties granted to the members of a society.

While your story is infuriating, and ones like it are all too common, I think a little research before declaring the security guard's and police officer's word as fact would have been prudent. Education on the laws, rather than the spreading of rumors, is the way to combat that sort of thing.

Monito
07-11-2011, 10:02 PM
People need to learn their highest government-granted liberties,

That's backwards. People are free. As a people, a true democracy can decide to grant the government some restrictions on their own freedom.

So its people-granted restrictions that the government is empowered to enforce.

2F/2F
07-11-2011, 10:17 PM
That's backwards. People are free. As a people, a true democracy can decide to grant the government some restrictions on their own freedom.

So its people-granted restrictions that the government is empowered to enforce.

We can look at it whichever philosophical way each of us wants. The point is the same, though. The liberties are stated, and they will disappear if we let them.

The way I see it, the idea of fundamental liberties was intellectually devised to protect us from our own human nature. I still maintain that any fundamental liberty we do have is granted by the federal government (which is supposedly of the people, but I don't think we will be there until every last person in the society acts like a responsible citizen), in order to protect the people from future governments, and from their fellow citizens. In the real world, not in a philosophical utopia, we don't have liberty simply because we are human. We have liberty because some guys got together some years ago and wrote a set of rules that sez we have liberty. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but that's what I think. I don't believe that humankind is instinctively "free," and I don't believe in anything supernatural which might grant us something that nature does not. We have liberties because some people decided it would be a good idea for those in a society to have liberties; that's it. They were right in some ways, and wrong in others. But they certainly were against the mainstream at the time. If it was so fundamentally human, how could anything else have ever been practiced? The idea of fundamental liberties shits in the face of instinctive human behavior – vicious, savage, selfish animals that we are by nature – like any other animal. To me, that the idea of fundamental liberty goes against this is what makes it so great. It pushes us to a level beyond animalism. It is man-made evolution of the species, intellectually devised and physically implemented.

So, by this outlook, those people whole stole the guy's photos were just being instinctively human. But the philosophical foundation of our system of government says that people should rise beyond their instinct in very specific ways – ways that do not support the actions of the thieves.

Anyhow, lest we digress too much, we can continue this via PM if you want, or in the Soap Box Forum. I don't want to get into it on top of this thread.

Monito
07-11-2011, 10:25 PM
The liberties are stated, and they will disappear if we let them.

Agree 100%.

That is why (the question another poster asked previously) photographers will be willing to get arrested (falsely) and risk spending a night or day in jail while the police go through their motions, and then spend a lot of time and effort suing them. I don't question anybody who doesn't want to take that risk and bother, but I salute and thank those who do.

Steve Smith
07-12-2011, 12:37 AM
I agree with 2F/2F in post No. 42. The situation is identical (if not very similar in the UK).


Steve.

spacer
07-12-2011, 02:34 AM
The problem with the idea of "granted" liberty is that the agency that "gave" them is more than likely going to either take them away, or hold them for ransom. The only way to ensure the greatest freedom for folks is to recognize pre-existing natural rights (commonly referred to as "negative", as they don't require that other folks be stolen from or otherwise oppressed) and require any existing government to operate within strict guidelines in order to avoid treading on them.
Unfortunately, any time you allow a group of people to gather and maintain power, they'll do everything possible to grow it, and you'll also attract the absolute worst power-hungry rascals to those positions... folks clever enough to erode and evade their own legal limits at every opportunity. It takes a special sort of bastard.

Ergh. Politics. Many blood-sucking creatures. I think I'll go back to reading about cameras now and stop jacking threads.

Athiril
07-12-2011, 03:27 AM
These are the possible scenarios:

1. The person was shooting from public property. The person has done nothing illegal. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

2. The person was shooting from private property that is considered a public space (e.g. a shopping mall or a private alleyway), and that has no signs prohibiting photography. The person has done nothing illegal, because even though the property is private, it is treated by the law as a public space. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

3. The person was shooting from private property that is not considered a public space (e.g. the lobby of a high rise or somebody's back yard), with no signs prohibiting photography. The person was then asked by the building owner not to shoot, and complied. The person has done nothing illegal, because according to the law, it can be assumed that photography is allowed on private property unless signs or people clearly prohibit it. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

4. The person was shooting from private property that is not considered a public space (e.g. the lobby of a high rise or somebody's back yard), with no signs prohibiting photography. The person was then asked by the building owner not to shoot, and did not comply. The person may be issued a trespassing ticket by the police for breaking stated rules on private property (a misdemeanor offense, and a non-arrestable one in this circumstance, barring lipping off to the officer). The person owns the photos. Any attempt to confiscate them by the property owner is coercion. If the photos are taken by the property owner, it is theft. The police may confiscate the pictures for use as evidence in court, but the photos remain the property of the shooter, and the police may not destroy them, damage them, or give them to the property owner.

5. The person was shooting from private property, and there were "no photography; private property" signs, or the like. Same as above, beginning with, "The person may be issued..."

In every case, the person owns the photos, even if the way he or she got them involved breaking the law. Under no circumstances may photos (i.e. the shooter's property in all cases) be permanently taken from the shooter, damaged, destroyed, or given away. And there is only one case in which anyone may confiscate the photos even temporarily; the police may take them as evidence of a crime. That's it!

People need to learn their highest government-granted liberties, or have them taken away by both private parties and other government bodies. It's their choice which they want. Let's just hope they remember that their choice affects everybody in the society, not just them. The fellow allowing that to happen was at best a display of ignorance, and at worst a display of selfishness saving one's own hide out of momentary fear, while sacrificing the greater good. Every time something like that happens, one more piece of sand washes off the mountain that represents the fundamental liberties granted to the members of a society.

While your story is infuriating, and ones like it are all too common, I think a little research before declaring the security guard's and police officer's word as fact would have been prudent. Education on the laws, rather than the spreading of rumors, is the way to combat that sort of thing.



Like.

Pretty much the same here, and most other places.

Diapositivo
07-12-2011, 05:50 AM
The condition of the woman is known as hysteria, and is a very well known one, since millennia. And it generally is the result of lack of sex, in this case, lack of sex with a (former mate) photographer. Hence the hate and will to pick a fight with any photographer. You don't need being polite in this case.

Unless Canada is different from any other place on the world, in Canada just like in any other place every building is copyrighted (you cannot copy, in the sense "make a copy", an identical building, without the consent of the architect), and every building is photographable from the public road.
It is important to educate photographers about this. In stock photography fora there's a lot of bullstuff going around saying that the Eiffel tower at night is copyrighted, the Sidney Opera House is copyrighted so cannot be taken pictures of, etc. It's all just plain nonsense.

The case of the Eiffel tower is particularly ridiculous. Those guys actually try to ask money for use of pictures taken at night. They have a web site for this, so that you can pay even, and you can ask questions. I asked twice to produce any norm which allows them to charge, stating that I did take pictures of the Eiffel tower at night, I did sell them, and I will go on selling them. I had no answer both times.

I also referred this in another forum, and told people to do like me, and see if they receive an answer, but it seems that nobody did it. They are the same people who say that the Eiffel tower is not photographable because it is "copyrighted". People seem to need bullstuff to live.

CGW
07-12-2011, 06:32 AM
These are the possible scenarios:

1. The person was shooting from public property. The person has done nothing illegal. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

2. The person was shooting from private property that is considered a public space (e.g. a shopping mall or a private alleyway), and that has no signs prohibiting photography. The person has done nothing illegal, because even though the property is private, it is treated by the law as a public space. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

3. The person was shooting from private property that is not considered a public space (e.g. the lobby of a high rise or somebody's back yard), with no signs prohibiting photography. The person was then asked by the building owner not to shoot, and complied. The person has done nothing illegal, because according to the law, it can be assumed that photography is allowed on private property unless signs or people clearly prohibit it. The person owns the photos. Any attempt by anyone, including the police, to confiscate them is coercion. If the photos are taken by anyone, including the police, it is theft.

4. The person was shooting from private property that is not considered a public space (e.g. the lobby of a high rise or somebody's back yard), with no signs prohibiting photography. The person was then asked by the building owner not to shoot, and did not comply. The person may be issued a trespassing ticket by the police for breaking stated rules on private property (a misdemeanor offense, and a non-arrestable one in this circumstance, barring lipping off to the officer). The person owns the photos. Any attempt to confiscate them by the property owner is coercion. If the photos are taken by the property owner, it is theft. The police may confiscate the pictures for use as evidence in court, but the photos remain the property of the shooter, and the police may not destroy them, damage them, or give them to the property owner.

5. The person was shooting from private property, and there were "no photography; private property" signs, or the like. Same as above, beginning with, "The person may be issued..."

In every case, the person owns the photos, even if the way he or she got them involved breaking the law. Under no circumstances may photos (i.e. the shooter's property in all cases) be permanently taken from the shooter, damaged, destroyed, or given away. And there is only one case in which anyone may confiscate the photos even temporarily; the police may take them as evidence of a crime. That's it!

People need to learn their highest government-granted liberties, or have them taken away by both private parties and other government bodies. It's their choice which they want. Let's just hope they remember that their choice affects everybody in the society, not just them. The fellow allowing that to happen was at best a display of ignorance, and at worst a display of selfishness saving one's own hide out of momentary fear, while sacrificing the greater good. Every time something like that happens, one more piece of sand washes off the mountain that represents the fundamental liberties granted to the members of a society.

While your story is infuriating, and ones like it are all too common, I think a little research before declaring the security guard's and police officer's word as fact would have been prudent. Education on the laws, rather than the spreading of rumors, is the way to combat that sort of thing.

Sorry but I live in the Toronto area and have some difficulties buying the scenario BrianL sketched. Not much point in generalizing about eroding liberties if nothing really happened, especially in a jurisdiction that's foreign to you.. The City of Toronto seems to believe there are no issues photographing the the Gooderham building.

Steve Smith
07-12-2011, 06:52 AM
in Canada just like in any other place every building is copyrighted

The Berne Convention Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 does give some copyright protection to buildings but this is only to prevent an identical (or very similar) structure from being built and does not restrict photography of a building.


``Sec. 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.

To take it a step further, a photograph of a building is not a copy of a building. Only another building can be a copy of an existing building.


Steve.

Diapositivo
07-12-2011, 07:42 AM
Steve, that's exactly what I said in my post. You quoted only the first sentence. Every building is copyrighted, not just certain buildings. Architects were born equal :)

When a building is "copyrighted" it means that you cannot make another building like that, it doesn't mean you cannot photograph it, that's what I wrote in post #49.

Steve Smith
07-12-2011, 07:48 AM
Then we agree!

As the Berne Convention Act states that only another building can infringe the copyright of another building, I wonder how far we can take that logic.

i.e. can you only infringe the copyright of a statue by making another statue? A flat piece of paper with the picture of a statue on it is not really a copy of the 3D original.

What about an oil painting? Is a photograph of it a copy which can be an infringement or does it have to be another oil painting in order to infringe the original's copyright?


Steve.

sly
07-12-2011, 08:14 AM
Some folks demanding photos not be taken might be in hiding (from the law, an abusive ex, etc.), some may be mentally unbalanced, some may just be self-important busybodies. (I'll assume diapositivos comment was meant as a joke.)

Hornby Island, a favorite place of ours, has a clothing optional beach. One cool and cloudy day I was taking LF photos at one end of the beach where there's a wonderful jumble of eroded sandstone. A fully clothed man appoached me stridently stating I wasn't allowed to take photos because it was a nude beach. My camera was clearly pointed at a rock. I offered to show him the groundglass. He repeated his assertion that no photos were allowed. There were 2 brave souls in the water at the other end of the beach - far enough away that their clothing option wasn't apparent. The camera was not pointed that away. I tool my photo, he hovered around saying I was going to get in trouble. He finally left when I folded up my tripod.

I've taken photos there many times, sometimes when the beach is well populated by sun worshippers. No one else has ever objected because I'm respectful of other's privacy. I've seen lots of P&S cameras, and no one seems bothered by them.

A photo I'd have loved to take was a birthday party for a matriarch. She was surrounded by her children and grandchildren. She was proudly, brownly, naked; all her family were clothed. Terrific scene, but my camera stayed in it's pack.

Bob-D659
07-12-2011, 08:19 AM
Steve, the answer to your question is in the UK copyright law and is possibly influenced by court decisions in the UK.

Monito
07-12-2011, 08:40 AM
What about an oil painting? Is a photograph of it a copy which can be an infringement or does it have to be another oil painting in order to infringe the original's copyright?

A photograph of an oil painting is a derivative work because both are two-dimensional imagery. Even a sculpture that copies a photograph is derivative, as was established by the Rogers v. Koons case in the Supreme Court for the US, but undoubtedly very influential on IP legal thought around the world.

However, if someone wrote an piece of music about a photograph, as Philip Glass did about Edward Muybridge (though time had elapsed on the copyright), there would not be a derivative work and no copyright problem. Likewise for a ballet about a bridge.

Steve Smith
07-12-2011, 08:46 AM
However, if someone wrote an piece of music about a photograph, as Philip Glass did about Edward Muybridge (though time had elapsed on the copyright), there would not be a derivative work and no copyright problem. Likewise for a ballet about a bridge.

But what about a sound recording of a mime?!!

Steve.

BrianShaw
07-12-2011, 08:49 AM
[QUOTE=2F/2F;1208146]People need to learn their highest government-granted liberties, or have them taken away by both private parties and other government bodies. It's their choice which they want. /QUOTE]

Forgive me for picking on words, but this seems to have gotten some people revved up.

Indeed, this is a true statement but might be more easily understood by substituting the word "protected" for 'granted'.

Monito
07-12-2011, 08:49 AM
But what a bout a sound recording of a mime?!!

There the issue would be recognizability. Would it sound different from some other mime and would it be distinctly the mime in question. A tough case to prove, to say the least. However, if the mime act was like Red Skelton's miming with distinctive cowbells or other sound effects, then yes, it could be derivative and a copyright infringement.

BrianShaw
07-12-2011, 08:57 AM
A photo I'd have loved to take was a birthday party for a matriarch. She was surrounded by her children and grandchildren. She was proudly, brownly, naked; all her family were clothed. Terrific scene, but my camera stayed in it's pack.

I would have asked. That would make a wonderful photo!