Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, I can't tell if you are disputing that distribution of a photograph of a building violates copyright on the building or if you are arguing about what kind of copyright is violated as in "design copyright" being some sort of specific sort of copyright. If the former - then you should read something like this page - if the later, well I'm not all that interested in nitpicking - suffice to say that photographs of a building can in many cases violate copyrights on the design of the building.

It is not completely true. If you take picture of me the copyright might be yours but you are often limited in what you can do with the picture. Unless I sign a model release form. As I understand according to USA law there are some cases when non-private use is allowed without the signed form but you definitely are not allowed to sell to stock image agencies without this.

I've walked on the bottom of the ocean before. The picture's not me, just an example. ;)

what stops them right now?

This whole thing sounds like an urban legend to me, but in general you can't just publish a photo with somebody's recognizable likeness and label it in a way that may tend to smear that person's reputation, without the consent of the person depicted in the photo. So, even if you had copyright or a valid license on the photos of these ladies, if you published a book of those photos and labeled it "Dirty Facebook Skanks," you could get in trouble.

This page contains a useful non-lawyerly overview of the topic.

Once such pictures are published it is almost impossible to find an impartial jury.

Not the problem of the photographer, at least not in the US.

In general, you DO have the right to photograph an arrest. You can even record it, though it's possible that that could fall under wiretap laws if it's done without at least the knowledge of one of the parties of the arrest (would depend on the state.) But just because you have a right to do something, that doesn't mean the police won't attempt to stop you from exercising this right ...

Similarly, you can publish this photograph as well, even without permission of those being photographed. Depending on what you're doing with the picture, you might need a model release, however -- but if you're simply publishing it as news, you do not.

As I said, this is in the US. No idea about other countries, though it wouldn't surprise me if they're similar.

Toyota is probably trying to protect its trademarks.

Trademarks protect the use of an identifying mark in commerce. It does not prevent you from taking or selling photographs of objects bearing such a mark, except in some exceptional cases where some sort of endorsement or association is implied.

And you can't use a copyright law - the DCMA - to enforce a trademark. Completely different animals.

while they may own the image, they can't just go publish an 'identifiable photo' of me without my consent.

Wrong.

screw the cigars, I want to get some of their cars. http://www.danheller.com/cuba-cars.html

with the lack of salt in the air and constant maintenance, those cars are in great condition and are worth a fortune in the US.

Somebody thought it'd be a good idea to have a "beauty contest" with unwilling contestants, and some of the organizers of the "contest" went over the top. Right now the law doesn't really provide a remedy for that sort of thing.

Yes it does - Model releases are an accepted mechanism for allowing people to use your face for certain purposes. Sometimes you need one, sometimes not. I'd like to see how this sort of situation would come out, though.

It may surprise you to know that the photographer isn't ultimately culpable for images that are published without a release. It's the publisher of an image that carries all the liability. Yes, whoever it is that puts the image into use needs to have the photo released. Who puts the photo into use? The user of the photo. The photographer is usually not that person. That the photographer sells the photo (or licenses it) is not what triggers the need for a model release. It's how the photo is ultimately put into print (or on display to the world) that matters.

He is curiously unaware, or oblivious to the possibility, that the New York Times' lawyers may want to chat with him about his copy-and-paste of an article from last year's NYT Valentine's day drivel.

Dan, just because it's on the net doesn't mean you have the right to use it!

I'm losing a mod to say this, but thought this article was a good one, and the site isn't half bad for something thinking about the photography business:

http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html

...model release.

You need to read the history and case law on model releases. You're making a host of assumptions that are not valid in this context. For a fairly concise layman's summary of the issues, I recommend this primer.

Nope. Read up a little on model releases. Even when dealing with a professional photographer or a stock photo company, model releases are always handled explicitly, they're never implied by any other agreement. If the photographer doesn't explicitly say that he has obtained a model release, the court will always hold the publisher fully liable. Actually, even taking the photographer's word that a release exists can land the publisher in hot water -- they really need to examine the exact wording of the release to ensure that it covers the specific use they want to make. Having the photographer say "I have a model release that allows advertising use" isn't even good enough, because the photographer is not a lawyer and doesn't have the expertise to make that evaluation. A photographer that said that might be held partly responsible by a judge, but the bulk of the fault would still be found to lie with the publisher who should have known better than to accept legal advice from a photographer. This is especially true of an amateur photographer. So even if an implied release could be construed to exist, it would do them no good.

Further, it's not the responsibility of the photographer to even know if a release is necessary. There are commercial uses (reporting, art) that do not require a release and photographers frequently sell unreleased photos. It's completely on the publisher to decide if a release is required for a particular commercial use, and to verify its existence and content.

Based on the facts available, unless the ad agency contacted the photographer and asked him about the model release, under US law this is completely their fault. It remains to be seen how it works under Australian law, but there really is no other way for it to work and be just. It is not reasonable to expect photographers to be lawyers, nor to expect amateur photographers to obtain legal counsel before putting a photo up on a web site. It is perfectly reasonable to expect ad agencies to have legal counsel and to understand these issues thoroughly.

BTW, IANAL, but I am a serious amateur photographer looking to begin selling some of my photos, so I've studied the topic a little.

I didn't know this. You appear to be correct, here are a couple references.

Odd, that's pretty much exactly what I did with my new Dell Ubuntu box (except for the configuration - what does that do again?). It also found my old HP networked Laserjet (which some of my computers won't do) once I told it there was a printer on the LAN.

It just worked. Even better than my Mac. Impressive.

Really? You plugged your CPU into a wall socket, and what exactly happened?

Just as a model must sign rights over to the photographer (a verbal agreement is all that is needed legally) for the photographer to copy the image.

So wrong it's not funny. You might want to read the workings of more knowledgeable people than you (or I): http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Some choice quotes:

if you have no intent to ever sell or license your photos, you have nothing to worry about. (If you are still worried, go back and read the entire chapter.) Yes, you can even post these photos on a website. Where you can get into trouble is if you say something incorrect about the person or otherwise misrepresent him, and if this somehow damages him or his reputation, you're probably going to get a legal spanking. But this has nothing to do with model releases. It's all about libel, and that's pretty serious. Ironically, it's legal to do this in the context of TV broadcasting of negative political campaign ads, but other than that, you should act like an adult. (Er, you know.)

So whether you like it or not, I as a photographer can take a picture of you and do whatever I like with it, particularly including copying it. (Within parameters such as misrepresentation, privacy, etc.)

People who've had their photos taken and are upset about it, or who have their photos used in a way that doesn't make them happy. Of the vast number of emails I've had from people who fit into this category, there's only been one case where someone actually had a valid claim for how the image was used that was worth pursuing. In short, unless someone has used a photo of you in a commercial context (also discussed in this chapter) or has violated your privacy, you can't do a whole lot about it. The sadder part is, even for those who may have a valid claim, the infringements are usually so small that doing anything about it would be too costly to bother with. A major part of this chapter is the section on the Risk/Reward Analysis.

...except, of course, when the building (or other structure) in question is trademarked, in which case you may not make money from your photo without getting sued by the building's trademark owner.

W

For that, let's add a twist: what if you just shot a general picture of the entire field because there was a great sunset? Although you can still identify some people individually, do you still need a release? It's been successfully argued that if the point of the photo is not a specific person, but a broader scene, then the a release is not necessary. These cases usually involve innocuous items like postcards and other simple consumable products that are not tied to a promotion of an idea.

The main point to this section is "art," and in that context, the courts almost always rule in favor of no release. .... Art exhibits--and indeed, the sales of photos as artwork--are exempt from requiring a release from subjects that happen to be portrayed. Courts have decided repeatedly on this matter, including those situations where other potential conflicts may be intertwined.

When dealing with an analog (chemical!) medium such as film, dpi isn't really a valid metric, as the film uses stochastically arranged groupings of silver halide particles rather than the fixed pixel grid used by an image sensor. The 3500-4000dpi value mentioned in Heller's article is related more to oversampling in the scanning process than to the inherent resolution of 35mm film. Even medium format film will not resolve detail at such a high frequency, as can be easily verified by shooting a resolution chart in a controlled studio environment

• 35mm film frame: 24mm x 36mm = approx 1" x 1.5"
• 3500dpi: 18.5 megapixels = 3500px x 5250px
• 4000dpi: 24 megapixels = 4000px x 6000px

A number of higher end DSLR's achieve this resolution, and this has been the case for a few years. However, as mentioned, scanning at a high dpi value is like oversampling an analog signal. Subject matter, lighting, exposure & aperture significantly affect subjective resolution. Although its comparing apples & oranges, I'd say the digital resolution equivalent of 35mm film can be anywhere from 6 megapixels to 12 megapixels depending on shooting conditions.

Thank you.

Last I checked, 35mm was approximately 3500-4000 DPI. That's significantly more than even the latest digital cameras.

I don't think so. Long exposures of the night sky produce an interesting effect of star trails. An exposure of only several minutes can produce these trails. They will seem to orbit around the north pole. I've taken pictures like this, but I don't have my scanner so I'll have to google an example. If you use a telephoto lens, the trails will appear longer. If you use a wide angle or even a fish eye, you can see how they all orbit around a central point.

Star trails are really interesting. Reciprocity failure from a long exposure also produces some neat effects and strange colors. This is one of the reasons why silver halide (film) photography will still be of interest for a while.

Here's a page on star trails I just googled:
http://www.danheller.com/star-trails.html

What if I go out and take pictures of somebody using MY camera and posting them all over the web. That isn't illegal, is is?

Apparently, its legality hasn't been challenged in court yet. A Google search brought up this page about model release forms, and why they are required. It discusses the legalities surrounding photography. Here are excerpts...

"One doesn't have to be a professional 'model' to be eligible for signing a model release. Anyone or anything that is the subject of a photograph is considered the 'model'."

"It should be stated right up front that a model release is not required or mandated by any federal or state laws in the United States. However, as will be discussed thoroughly, individuals have a 'right' to choose certain conditions under which someone may use a photo of them, and if those rights are violated, that person could bring a 'civil' lawsuit against the photographer and/or others that may be culpable."

"Physical prints and negatives have nothing to do with rights to use them. Just because a person has photos, that does not give any special, implied or intrinsic rights to use them. One person emailed me saying that he purchased raw negatives of the Beatles on eBay and thought it gave him the right to make new prints and sell them. This is not the case because this would involve reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material. Just because he owned the negatives doesn't give him special rights."

"Anyone can put photos on the web without a model release. Where it can get sticky for pro photographers is whether the photos can be construed as being a form of advertisement. I don't want to oversimplify and say that you're safe if you put your images on your web page, since this has yet to be challenged in court. To play it safe, though, just make sure you don't make it appear as though you are using images to advertise another product or have any association unrelated to you and your work/business."

In the case of this story, the person posting the photographs on the web wasn't in them, didn't take them, didn't own them, or have any rights associated to them whatsoever.

I'll tell you right now that if you and I are in a pblic place I can take and PBLISH photos of you legally UNTIL you tell me not to.

You're restraining orders notwithstanding, I think that you should read what a professional photographer has to say about that. Are you telling me that I have a legal right to take a picture of you in public and then post it on the web in a fictional story in which your photo is described as "the mortician's son who's into necrophilia"?

And the alternative is to park the contents of those 20 floors out on the street. Of course, the real alternative is mass transit. But Americans are married to our cars; in the future we'll never leave our cars. So the really visionary future has us driving our cubicles up into docks in the cubefarms, and back out onto mass cartrains for longer express hauls, like in _Minority Report_.

I suppose a lion or a horse might have more luck than a dog

Hmm.. I can see it now. Maybe it'll look like this, or maybe this or this or this

Oh, and you better remember to include one of these!

Hmm.. I can see it now. Maybe it'll look like this, or maybe this or this or this

Oh, and you better remember to include one of these!

Hmm.. I can see it now. Maybe it'll look like this, or maybe this or this or this

Oh, and you better remember to include one of these!

Hmm.. I can see it now. Maybe it'll look like this, or maybe this or this or this

Oh, and you better remember to include one of these!

Yeah, I can't imagine any possible down side to working in porn.

1. This guy
2. This guy
3. This guy
4. This guy
5. This gal
6. CowboyNeal!

Don't worry. No goatse links. Just a collection of "Racks of the World"
rack rack rack rack rack rack rack rack