A question of ethics

[TPadden]

The question is way beyond ethics, because it concerns the copyright
of the objects or persons depicted in the pictures.
An example: if you take a picture of the Hollywood sign, you may NOT
publish your photo without the permission of the owners of the

It was a very simple question with several simple answers - one of them isn't: you must check those wedding photos and ask Samsung's permission to use any photo with guests using a Samsung cell phone.

You guys in Europe must spend your entire life getting permission; in the US if the object is merely incidental there is usually no problem. If there is a problem you are usually told to remove the photograph and when you do the problem goes away.

Tom

 

[ocrampix]

The question is way beyond ethics, because it concerns the copyright
of the objects or persons depicted in the pictures.
An example: if you take a picture of the Hollywood sign, you may NOT
publish your photo without the permission of the owners of the

It was a very simple question with several simple answers - one of
them isn't: you must check those wedding photos and ask Samsung's
permission to use any photo with guests using a Samsung cell phone.

Samsung?

The question is whether you are allowed to publish pictures of people who have not given their permission to you to do so.

You guys in Europe must spend your entire life getting permission; in
the US if the object is merely incidental there is usually no
problem. If there is a problem you are usually told to remove the
photograph and when you do the problem goes away.

This has nothing to do with Europe, it has everything to do with copyright.

You didn't even look at the link I posted here, so I am posting it again, and this does also concern the USA: http://www.imagecatalog.com/copyright_and_trademark.php

You may NOT publish pictures of copyrighted objects or persons - whether you own the photograph or not - without the permission of the owners of the objects and/or persons depicted in your photos.

Marco

 

[TPadden]

You didn't even look at the link I posted here, so I am posting it
again, and this does also concern the USA:
http://www.imagecatalog.com/copyright_and_trademark.php

You may NOT publish pictures of copyrighted objects or persons -
whether you own the photograph or not - without the permission of the
owners of the objects and/or persons depicted in your photos.

Marco

Marco,

Rubbish! "In most countries, permission is not needed to include a copyrighted work in a photograph if its is merely an incidental part of the background, or is otherwise incidental to the principle object/subject represented in the photograph."

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0010.html

...... and yes, I did look at your link.

Tom

 

[pierre1]

showing in the Pro, Lighting, Samples and all DSLR and P&S Forums since the very beginning. I'll garantee that 99% have not had release forms signed off by any of their wedding subjects. Then again it could be a subjective decision and matter of taste and you would have to decide.

Pierre
--
' Don't let outside negative forces affect the way you choose to feel '
http://matrixone.zenfolio.com/
http://www.pbase.com/matrixone

 

[Brooks P]

Here is some reading, it will take some time, that may help you as far as what your legal requirements are – it won’t solve your ethical questions.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html

Pay particular attention to item 7 on this page. Putting the pictures in a portfolio to show to prospective clients would be considered “personal use” and you don’t need a release. http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html

Exhibiting them on the forum and asking for CC also would fall under the heading of “personal use”.

--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

 

[BIGGY]

The question is way beyond ethics, because it concerns the copyright
of the objects or persons depicted in the pictures.
An example: if you take a picture of the Hollywood sign, you may NOT
publish your photo without the permission of the owners of the

It was a very simple question with several simple answers - one of
them isn't: you must check those wedding photos and ask Samsung's
permission to use any photo with guests using a Samsung cell phone.

Samsung?

The question is whether you are allowed to publish pictures of people
who have not given their permission to you to do so.

You guys in Europe must spend your entire life getting permission; in
the US if the object is merely incidental there is usually no
problem. If there is a problem you are usually told to remove the
photograph and when you do the problem goes away.

This has nothing to do with Europe, it has everything to do with
copyright.
You didn't even look at the link I posted here, so I am posting it
again, and this does also concern the USA:
http://www.imagecatalog.com/copyright_and_trademark.php

You may NOT publish pictures of copyrighted objects or persons -
whether you own the photograph or not - without the permission of the
owners of the objects and/or persons depicted in your photos.

Marco

Long story short this is incorrect. Oh and Hollywood signs or any other owned or private property can be published or posted. Just because that site does not accept those images doesn't make it law. Someone can take a picture of your house and then publish it on the front page of Time Magazine, it makes no difference. Image Catalog might not accept the photo's but so what?

So to answer the OP question. You don't have to ask for permission. You can be a nice guy and say "hey I'd like to post them in a forum or use them to start a business", but you don't legally have to. It is implied and understood that a photographer who is invited to an event can do whatever he likes with the photo's so long as the agreed services are provided. Unless the photographer signs or agrees to a privacy statement saying otherwise of course.

 

[ocrampix]

Long story short this is incorrect.

Would you please show some references to substantiate your claim?

Oh and Hollywood signs or any
other owned or private property can be published or posted.

Doing a quick Google search:
http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/chamber/faq.asp#q22
http://ask.metafilter.com/88293/Hollywood-Sign-Trademarked

Just
because that site does not accept those images doesn't make it law.

Yes, there are copyrighted objects, and that's the law - also in the USA.

Someone can take a picture of your house and then publish it on the
front page of Time Magazine, it makes no difference.

Well, if they were doing this without my written permission, I would drag them to court.

Image Catalog
might not accept the photo's but so what?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Image Catalog. The only reason why they won't accept certain photos is because they depict copyrighted objects.

So to answer the OP question. You don't have to ask for permission.

Do you have a legal text that shows that your claim is correct?

Marco

 

[ocrampix]

You didn't even look at the link I posted here, so I am posting it
again, and this does also concern the USA:
http://www.imagecatalog.com/copyright_and_trademark.php

You may NOT publish pictures of copyrighted objects or persons -
whether you own the photograph or not - without the permission of the
owners of the objects and/or persons depicted in your photos.

Marco

Marco,

Rubbish!

How is my text "rubbish" when your quote just below says "most"?
And even more exceptions in the very link you posted...

"In most countries, permission is not needed to include a
copyrighted work in a photograph if its is merely an incidental part
of the background, or is otherwise incidental to the principle
object/subject represented in the photograph."

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0010.html

You better read all of the text in your link, because there are some very subtle differences to what may or may not be published.

As an example, a photo of the Atomium in Brussels may NOT be published without the permission of the owners of the Atomium.

This is just one example, and there are many others from all over the world, including the USA.

Marco

 

[BIGGY]

Here's just one quick example:
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

But more so why it's legal is that you can look at the examples of extreme photographers such as paparazzi. Just the other week my girlfriend was watching TMZ where they show all of the celebrities in their private lives and gossip...garbage basically. Showed Owen Wilson and Kate Hudson in their back yard getting nice and friendly with each other. So the camera man simply climbed a ladder or up in a tree and shot from the street into their back yard. This was aired on a show and a profit made from this shot as well as countless others where this happens on a daily basis.

Long story short, at least in America, anything regarding photography is generally legal unless it's explicitly stated that it's not. Now if you broke into a wedding and snapped some shots (trespassing) then even in most of those cases you can publish your photos.

And if you need further proof, don't just google pointless websites, but look at previous court cases where more often than not, the photographer wins.

Do you have a legal text that shows that your claim is correct?

Marco

 

[BIGGY]

Yes, there are copyrighted objects, and that's the law - also in the
USA.

There are copyrighted objects yes. For example I can't just snap a picture of the Eiffel Tower and then open up a tourist agency using that image as the logo. But I can take a picture of the Hollywood sign, print it, frame it, and hang it on my wall. I can give it as a gift, post it on my photo website, edit it in photoshop with cool effects. It's if I go to sell it where it becomes a little more questionable. But if Britney Spears is walking down the street and I snap a shot of her with the hollywood sign in the back, I'm perfectly free to sell that photo to the tabloids without worry.

Someone can take a picture of your house and then publish it on the
front page of Time Magazine, it makes no difference.

Well, if they were doing this without my written permission, I would
drag them to court.

You can drag them to court or attempt to. Most likely it will cost you not only your time but you may have to pay their court fees and they can counter sue for legal expenses. Unless someone is posting pictures of your house and selling them or making a profit from them, there is little you can do. Just go to LA and get a map of the stars homes...you'll find pictures of their homes and the best way to get there. I doubt your case would even be heard, chances are it would be dismissed the instant you're called up...this is due to the establishment of law by prior cases and examples. First words out of the other sides mouth would be "Your honor we move to have this case dismissed." The next thing you'd hear is "Motion granted, case dismissed."

 

[ocrampix]

Here's just one quick example:
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

I am assuming that this document only concerns the USA.
In Europe this is a totally different kettle of fish!

But more so why it's legal is that you can look at the examples of
extreme photographers such as paparazzi. Just the other week my
girlfriend was watching TMZ where they show all of the celebrities in
their private lives and gossip...garbage basically. Showed Owen
Wilson and Kate Hudson in their back yard getting nice and friendly
with each other. So the camera man simply climbed a ladder or up in
a tree and shot from the street into their back yard. This was aired
on a show and a profit made from this shot as well as countless
others where this happens on a daily basis.

Yes, and then they get sued afterwards, pay the fine and continue. These companies have a whole legal department and the budget to take care of these things.

Long story short, at least in America, anything regarding photography
is generally legal unless it's explicitly stated that it's not.

Well, this is not stated on the copyrighted objects themselves, but there are copyrighted objects in the USA nonetheless.

Now
if you broke into a wedding and snapped some shots (trespassing) then
even in most of those cases you can publish your photos.

Sure, and will be sued afterwards, if they don't break your photographic gear before that...

Marco

 

[BIGGY]

Oh and one other thing. Modern buildings, towers, and the like that are built now generally have an exemption of being copyright for personal use photos. The Atomium is using mostly outdated laws to go after people who snap a picture of it on holiday...unfortunately.

Your example above and others are the VAST MINORITY. In fact I'd bet it would take one good court battle to undo the rule about snapping pictures of it.

Your arguments so far have been more along the lines of finding the isolated instances of where a photo can't be snapped. It's like someone asking "What's air made of?" And instead of saying "Oxygen and Nitrogen mostly", you say "Argon" which makes up less than 1% of the air we breath.

You better read all of the text in your link, because there are
some very subtle differences to what may or may not be published.

As an example, a photo of the Atomium in Brussels may NOT be
published without the permission of the owners of the Atomium.

This is just one example, and there are many others from all over
the world, including the USA.

Marco

 

[ocrampix]

But I can take a picture of the Hollywood
sign, print it, frame it, and hang it on my wall. I can give it as a
gift, post it on my photo website, edit it in photoshop with cool
effects.

So you are in fact dismissing the following story as nonsense?
http://ask.metafilter.com/88293/Hollywood-Sign-Trademarked

It's if I go to sell it where it becomes a little more
questionable. But if Britney Spears is walking down the street and I
snap a shot of her with the hollywood sign in the back, I'm perfectly
free to sell that photo to the tabloids without worry.

I don't think they would buy it, because they would not be allowed to publish the picture because of the Hollywood sign. It also depends on how you caught Britney Spears, as there are certain restrictions on public figures as well.

Marco

 

[ocrampix]

Oh and one other thing. Modern buildings, towers, and the like that
are built now generally have an exemption of being copyright for
personal use photos. The Atomium is using mostly outdated laws to go
after people who snap a picture of it on holiday...unfortunately.

They are not outdated at all! The Atomium is a perfect example, because its inventor died in 2005 and the copyright of the Atomium continues until 70 years after his death.

Your example above and others are the VAST MINORITY. In fact I'd bet
it would take one good court battle to undo the rule about snapping
pictures of it.

So you're in fact just speculating.

Your arguments so far have been more along the lines of finding the
isolated instances of where a photo can't be snapped. It's like
someone asking "What's air made of?" And instead of saying "Oxygen
and Nitrogen mostly", you say "Argon" which makes up less than 1% of
the air we breath.

It's more complicated than that, because there is an American company that wants to copyright humans gens, just because they have done certain research on those gens.

Marco

 

[Brooks P]

Someone can take a picture of your house and then publish it on the
front page of Time Magazine, it makes no difference.

Well, if they were doing this without my written permission, I would
drag them to court.

Marco

You wouldn’t get far, because the cover of Time magazine would be considered as Editorial Content and is not subject to copyright laws because it comes under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment – which covers freedom of the press. Beyond that anyone photographing your house from public property can do so, and they can use the pictures because you do not own a copyright or trademark on your home. Someone at one time had a blueprint for your home and that design may in fact be copyrighted; that covers the design but not the actual building. For the architect to exercise the copyrights some sort of economic measurement would have to be involved, such as does the display of the photo somehow having an economic effect on the architects ability to sell his product? Is the product diminished in value? Can a link even be established from the picture back to the architect? And possibly even more relevant the publisher is responsible for obtaining any releases that may be needed, not the photographer.

Check out these sites,
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer
http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html

A Photographer’s Rights
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

“The General Rule

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.”

“Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.”
published by:
Bert P. Krages II
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
http://www.krages.com
© 2003 Bert P. Krages II

--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

 

[BIGGY]

Ok, how about this, besides the fact that I've dealt with these cases...you win. I won't go citing the statistics of win to loss ratio, but the losses very very heavily favor the people who are in your mindset. So while you're not in the legal profession and are mostly googling your answers as opposed to my experience, we'll just say you're right for your sake.

For anyone that wants the real world answer, disregard Marcos (no offense but it's just typical thinking), it's perfectly legal, you will not get sued...99% of why you won't get sued is because someone who's in Marco's position will not find an attorney to take your case except for a full hourly rate since the attorney knows it would be ridiculous to take a losing case on contingency. So to sue me to take down a photo may cost you $5000-$10,000 in filing, legal, and attorney fees. Of which you will see zero returned, so most people will not bother.

Here's just one quick example:
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

I am assuming that this document only concerns the USA.
In Europe this is a totally different kettle of fish!

But more so why it's legal is that you can look at the examples of
extreme photographers such as paparazzi. Just the other week my
girlfriend was watching TMZ where they show all of the celebrities in
their private lives and gossip...garbage basically. Showed Owen
Wilson and Kate Hudson in their back yard getting nice and friendly
with each other. So the camera man simply climbed a ladder or up in
a tree and shot from the street into their back yard. This was aired
on a show and a profit made from this shot as well as countless
others where this happens on a daily basis.

Yes, and then they get sued afterwards, pay the fine and continue.
These companies have a whole legal department and the budget to take
care of these things.

Long story short, at least in America, anything regarding photography
is generally legal unless it's explicitly stated that it's not.

Well, this is not stated on the copyrighted objects themselves, but
there are copyrighted objects in the USA nonetheless.

Now
if you broke into a wedding and snapped some shots (trespassing) then
even in most of those cases you can publish your photos.

Sure, and will be sued afterwards, if they don't break your
photographic gear before that...

Marco

 

[qtfsniper]

I've been following this thread and Marco just seems crazy. armchair lawyer anyone? I've read enough into it to know what can be used and what can't be used. I think you're on the right track but.. not enough to know the rules yet. I think BIGGY won this round

 

[ocrampix]

Ok, how about this, besides the fact that I've dealt with these
cases...you win. I won't go citing the statistics of win to loss
ratio, but the losses very very heavily favor the people who are in
your mindset. So while you're not in the legal profession and are
mostly googling your answers as opposed to my experience, we'll just
say you're right for your sake.

For anyone that wants the real world answer, disregard Marcos (no
offense but it's just typical thinking), it's perfectly legal, you
will not get sued...99% of why you won't get sued is because someone
who's in Marco's position will not find an attorney to take your case
except for a full hourly rate since the attorney knows it would be
ridiculous to take a losing case on contingency. So to sue me to
take down a photo may cost you $5000-$10,000 in filing, legal, and
attorney fees. Of which you will see zero returned, so most people
will not bother.

Just to make one thing very clear here. This is an international website, therefore the US laws do not apply all over the world.

I know that in Europe the publishing of photos can be very restrictive, and I don't need to be a lawyer to know about these things.

There are even cases where public figures have successfully sued photographers who have published photographs of those public figures.

Marco

 

[BIGGY]

Thank you I happen to work in the legal department of a company and this is one of the things we deal with. Want some more legal fun try this on for size (case the we dealt with not too long ago). Let's say you're a member of a car club for car X. Now you and some members of this club decide to snap photo's of your cars and make a calendar for the club. So you use a public service to create and sell your calendars which are intended to be only for members. Can the automaker go after you? On one hand it's your car and these are meant to be private calendars to pay only for the cost of making them with no profit involved and on the other hand you're using an automakers image and then selling it. Interesting.

I've been following this thread and Marco just seems crazy. armchair
lawyer anyone? I've read enough into it to know what can be used and
what can't be used. I think you're on the right track but.. not
enough to know the rules yet. I think BIGGY won this round

 

[ocrampix]

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take
photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or
places where they have permission to take photographs.

I am not in the USA and I am not talking about taking pictures, but about publishing them without permission.

Marco