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
Rarely is the photographer the actual publisher, and it is the publisher's responsibility to obtain any required releases, not the photographer. Even if the primary subject of the photograph is copyrighted the photographer has the right under copyrights laws to use the photographs for his or her own personal use.
There are many exceptions to copyrights and trademarks, and generally the courts require the plaintiff to prove that they have suffered a loss or been damaged in some capacity.
Just the other day there was a thread on here about the San Diego Zoo, not the first by any stretch of the imagination. It just so happens that in his very good article “Photos of Trademarked and Copyrighted Works” Dan Heller discusses the San Diego Zoo, (
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html#4 )
“Then there's the case of the San Diego Zoo, which is a privately held company, who has copyrighted and trademarked their logos and other artifacts of the property. They also happen to be known for pursuing photographers for copyright violation, as evidenced by searching for relevant search terms on most pro photographer internet forums. The zoo's basis for their legal argument is the same as the Hearst Castle's: the ticket is a contract that says you can't take photos for commercial use. However, the question is really about a contract whose enforceability is questionable. As another layer put it, "while the zoo may prevent you from taking pictures while on their property, once you leave, your photos are yours, and the only thing they can do to prevent you from selling them is under a copyright infringement claim." But, this is a sticky situation as well. Because you can't copyright animals, and most photos the zoo objects to don't really show anything that can be held as an instance of copyright violation, there's not a whole lot the zoo can object to.”
“Of course, like the baseball pitch analogy, there's no ruling till the judges call it. And there's no case to judge until someone actually uses the photo in a specific way for him to make that call.”
“The subtler and more important part to observe here, is that some companies go after the photographer, which is entirely inappropriate, since there has not yet been a use of such photos to use as a basis for an infringement. Simply having them on a website for sale is not yet an infringement. It isn't until someone licenses the photo and uses it in a particular way might it become such.”
Putting the photos on dpreview does not constitute an infringement of copyrights.
--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/ 
