Originally Posted by ozwebfx
This was done to death last year. Rick published the gory details. No point resurrecting it.
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 1
You go ahead and do what you want, but don't come posting on AP if someone decided to take you to court. But most of the legal case revolved around him not having a signed release authorising access and use of the property. Basically the same as a model release, but over private property, rather than a person
Last edited by ricktas; 07-04-2010 at 8:18pm.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
Wouldn't you like to say " I told you so"
Maybe I'll do a search for the case you discussed last year, any pointer to it would be welcome
I've been doing a bit of searching on teh interwebs & can't find any particular law relating to it so as Law is a lot about precedence would be good to see examples.
Now .. another one to think about .. What if you were in the same cafe & saw a cockroach in your meal .. you photographed it .. the owner said "you didn't ask permission to photograph that cockroach in your meal"
There is another thread of some obnoxious weed of a photographer that capture an image of a girl(one of the cafe workers) and she objected to him doing so.
Instead of trying hard to mimic a human and comply with her wishes to remove the photos of her, this moron posted them to his flckr account.
He was taken to court and has an intervention order against him now, and cannot be within so many meters of any of the cafes owned by that chain. (this case was one in the USA).
I think it's easier to have some moral common sense in that if someone asks you to remove/delete any images that they find personally sensitive, then rather than try to prove that Andy Warhol was right by claiming that " in the future everyone will be famous for 15 mins".
With a policy that's geared towards "always towards getting the shot" .. and nice easy challenge is to try to profit from any images you capture of the Shrine of Remembrance. They allow you to take photos purely for personal use, but you're not allowed to publish them for profit. And as the security guard explained to me one night, that include from any vantage point, even from your own personal space. If the image contains enough detail of the shrine building they(whoever they is) will take action.
with respect to this comment/question:
It's very heavily dependent on the contents of the photo. if the image is of a fallen drinking glass as it's about to hit the ground and smash to tiny bits. no harm is going to come to anyone. If it's an image of a person, and that person doesn't want to be photographed and published they could argue in court that a model release was not sought and compensation may be sought(that's what I'd be aiming for, if the moron didn't comply with my wish not be photographed and published).with the example you gave as a Cafe .. imagine sitting in a cafe .. you see a fabulous shot .. you take the shot ... you haven't asked permission .. where is it detailed in Law that you had no right to take that shot?
While in 99% of instances I'm the kind that tries to shoot first and ask questions later, others people's right to personal space is more important, and the images will be deleted if asked to do so.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
I do believe in taking photos anywhere as long as you show respect
Darren
Gear : Nikon Goodness
Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
Please support Precious Hearts
Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
Under .au © law your would be in breach if you published that image and the restaurant owner would have the right to stop you.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=20673
If you were standing on the street (and had a long lens) then you could take that photo.
BTW in Rick's case two factors are relevant
1) The conditions and intent expressed when first taking the photo
2) The subsequent unauthorised commercial use and misrepresentation of its location
Heres a good point in case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klCSyq0Ii14
Just cause you can take a photo, doesn't mean you have the right (morally or legally) to do so.
You cannot photograph and publish shots of the Eiffel Tower at night, without permission.
There are lots of laws out there that cover a wide range of events in our lives. The fact you cannot find reference to them or a case about them on the internet does not mean that you the law doesn't exist.
My advice to all members reading this thread, If you want to enter private property to take photos, get permission from the owner of the property.
To counter your cockroach scenario ozwebfx, how about you take a video camera into the cinema next time you go, and start using it. Bet you find out soon enough where the law stands on taking photos (still or movie) on private property.
Fair Dinkum! Now this has really got me interested .. I'd definitely like some legal confirmation on that one!
Thanks for the link to the other Forum thread, I'll have a read through that useful info later.
Cheers.
Try reading for a few hours - you might learn something from the links provided. We don't write stuff just coz we think it's so, its based in prior research.
Private Land
In order to access a privately owned space you need permission from the landowner, and he or she has the right to impose restrictions on photography. Therefore, you may only be allowed to photograph certain objects or locations. This type or restriction is common in many museums, galleries and sporting grounds, and may occur on land owned by Councils. Even where the landowner allows you to photograph, keep in mind that he or she may not be the copyright owner in artistic works you might be photographing. In this case, you need the permission of the author of the artwork as well.
great point Kiwi and such a hard area as i am finding out reading along the forums gradually . a few links show the law and the legal vs ethical issues of this
as a newish photographer learning of more rights than i thought i had .. i still am sooo respectful of what it would be like for me to be on the receiving end of a lens..
John you were so considerate deleting what they wanted you to.. even though you dont have to i think by not o nly makes the public more angry.. I am strongly for educating them in a peaceful way that keeps the barriers down..
i did not realise till i started reading forums here and somewhere else that photographers have more rights...
I was with my son and nephew on the weekend and they wanted to take some photos of vineyards... from the fence... and then asked can we pop over the fence and get a close one.. i wrongly said oh it wont hurt... well with in 5 mins the owners came out and approached the kids... I jumped in and full of apologies and straight off i acknowledge we were wrong and explained i was teaching them a little about photos etc... then they were sooooo lovely .. all good even offered us some grapes.. ( wish it were wine) hehe
they were protecting their lively hood but happy to share the look of the land
Constructive Critique and editing of my images is welcome and appreciated.
Threadstarter
Gee l have opened up a can of worms!!!!!
There are no problems photographing worms if you are in a public space.
Please note that worm parents may become alarmed if you act oddly and may call the worm police.
Unless those worms are subject of say a family court protection order
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
