Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] The Mall revisited!! (LONG RAMBLE)

Subject: Re: [OM] The Mall revisited!! (LONG RAMBLE)
From: "John Hermanson" <omtech@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:51:50 -0500
I've read that mall interiors being custom designed are "copyrighted",
atleast in the eyes of the mall owners.  So they get all touchy about it
sometimes.  I walked around Roosevelt Field taking interior shots, expecting
to get hassled, but I didn't.  I guess it was so crowded, nobody noticed or
cared.
_________________________________
John Hermanson  www.zuiko.com
Camtech, Olympus Sales & Service since 1977
New OM & Used, Digital, Pearlcorders, Binoculars
21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743-4714
631-424-2121
_________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Gomez" <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: [OM] The Mall revisited!! (LONG RAMBLE)


> Here's the take on photography in public (meaning government owned) spaces
> (paraphrased below) from my girl-friend, regarding US law, who cautions:
>
> "I made an "A" in law school on this, but it's not something I was
involved
> in during my law practice."
>
> Here's what she said, in brief:
>
> 1. If you are on PUBLIC property (city/county/state
> street/thoroughfare/whatever), a doorman or bouncer cannot legally prevent
> you from taking a picture of a building. However, that may be a right you
> have to pursue after having been physically beaten if you refuse to
comply.
> :-( (In other words, be careful out there)
>
> 2. While you may be within your rights to photograph the building, you MAY
> NOT have a right to publish it anywhere for profit, and perhaps not
exhibit
> it anywhere even if not for profit. Owners of "commercial" buildings would
> have a lower "legal" expectation of privacy (for example, buildings where
> the primary purpose is for them to entice you in for commercial purpose)
> than those of "private" buildings, such as a home/residence. You may run
up
> against further problems regarding images that include trademarks...
>
> 3. If you are in a public space and the image is primarily of an
individual,
> then your ability to publish/exhibit depends highly on the individual
> involved. Celebrities and politicians have a "lower (legal) expectation of
> privacy" while in public spaces than private citizens. When in doubt,
> attempt to obtain a model release.
>
> So basically (my commentary here, not hers), you can make just about any
> image you want from a public space as long as the image isn't to be
> published for profit or exhibited. However, in run-ins with bouncers or
> doormen, you should act prudently to protect yourself and your equipment,
> unless you're willing to attempt redress at a later time in court.
>
> And, like any attorney, she says, "Talk to an attorney specializing in
this
> area of the law."
>
> ---
> Scott Gomez
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert R. Gries [mailto:rgg@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: RE: [OM] The Mall revisited!! (LONG RAMBLE)
>
> Sadly I run into this quite a lot in Chicago.  I am still not sure
> whether their claim is valid, but as you say, at least you got one shot
> in before the baboon ruined it for you!
>
> <snip>
>
> My understanding is that I was in a public place and because this was
> not
> for any commercial gain, that I had every right to photograph the
> outside of
> the building.
> Any comments/feedback are welcome.
> Cheers Adam
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz