The Anglo-American copyright legislation favourizes/protects the rights of the businesses by giving the copyright to the newspaper or magizine - even if a freelancer is the photographer. The Scandinavian legislation seems to protect the rights of the photographer/author, making it practically impossible for him/her to totally give away his/her rights.
I don't know if this is actually the case, but a PowerPoint presentation that I downloaded from the Danish Journalist Union says so. I find this quiet interesting. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 15. august 2005 22:16 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: The Photographer's Rights I would think one could photograph anything, so long as the rights of others are not violated, therefore: 1. One should be able to photograph anything which is in normal view from: Your own property. Public property. Private property wherein you have permission to photograph. Commercial property wherein photography is not prohibited. Getting a 20 foot ladder to photograph over a 15 foot fence from a public sidewalk is NOT normal view. 2. You have a right to make money from any such photograph, provided the act does not violate a copyright. Some people's images and some buildings are copywritten! 3. If you make money from the photograph for/as the press as news or news commentary, you are exempt from copyright violation, assuming. you are not actually using the photo to hawk a product in your press vehicle. Some folks, perhaps even I, may be embarrassed by photos taken of them when in plain view of public properties and thoroughfares, for example, a nude bather at an open public beach wherein photography has not been prohibited. They (or I) may perhaps be embarrassed even more if the photo is published in any way. Well, this is the price we (I) accept in a free society. After all, I am responsible for my own behavior, and being nude in public has it's natural consequences. I'm sure this doesn't cover everything, but remember, if you go to a baseball game, get knocked silly by a line drive to the head and are paralyzed on the right side so that you are no longer able pleasure yourself with your right hand, you can't sue. The danger of being a fan being hit by such a line drive is considered to be inherent in going to a game, and you accept the danger and all the possible consequences just by being there. Many folks don't know this, and I don't really blame them, but it's true, and their ignorance is their problem as far as law is concerned. Now, a camera in the vicinity of someone doing something embarrassing in view of the public is not really so dangerous as a 200 mph line drive. Regards, Bob... ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing." - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance to French King Louis XIV ----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:02 AM Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights > Cooty? Interesting... > > Jens Bladt wrote: > >>I second that, Cooty, John. >>Remember, that even though you may photograph, you may not automtically be >>allowed to publish the photographs as well. >> >>Jens Bladt >>Arkitekt MAA >>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sendt: 15. august 2005 10:35 >>Til: [email protected] >>Emne: Re: The Photographer's Rights >> >> >>A very sensible post, Cotty. >> >>One is reminded of the quote that "War is the continuation of diplomacy by >>other means". As we don't need reminding, the exercise of diplomacy by >>conventional means is usually the best policy. >> >>Of course, I am sure that Frank judged his busybody's possible reactions >>perfectly, and his more confrontational approach might have dissuaded the >>old harridan from further interference in other people's business. >> >>John >> >>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>On 14/8/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: >>> >>> >>>>I can only remember one incident when anyone made a comment. There's >>>>a fountain in a square downtown that spurts up from ground level. In >>>>summer, kids are often seen playing in the spray. I was photographing >>>>a couple of children frolicking in the water, and a lady came up to me >>>>and asked, "Did you get the parents' permission to take their photos?" >>>>To which I answered, "I don't need their permission, this is a public >>>>space and I have the right to take anyone's photo I want. In any >>>>event, the parents are over there, they've seen me taking photos, and >>>>they didn't say anything, so I suppose they're all right with it." >>>> >>>>She scowled and left. >>>> >>>I have a couple of observations which may be if interest. >>> >>>One is that, next time you might consider a slightly less adversarial >>>reply, even if the questioner is obviously ignorant of the law. >>>Sometimes, a friendly and reassuring chat can allay fears and suspicions, >>>even if not totally satisfying the inquisitor. For instance, if the old >>>lady had taken your retort badly, she may have called the police, and >>>that could have been both embarrassing and unnecessary, not to mention a >>>big inconvenience for you. There are plenty of places in the world where >>>undercover police are watching for just such activity and will readily >>>arrest and detain for several hours while film is processed and checked, >>>memory cards perused, and computers and hard drives confiscated and >>>examined in detail, with property being returned after some days or >>>weeks. (q.v. Trafalgar Square, London). >>> >>>The other is that if I am in a similar situation, and I am overtly >>>photographing a scene which may include children with their parents in >>>proximity, I would approach the parents and have a quick chat just to >>>reassure them that I am a genuine person, and not some nutter - I usually >>>say that I am a mature photography student (which is not a direct lie - I >>>am 45, and always learning about photography). A laugh and a joke, and >>>even the offer of prints, and I have yet to be refused. If I was, i would >>>move on - sure i could take the picture anyway, but I like my pics to >>>have *good karma* :-) >>> >>>When working, if I am filming in the street, I often get do-gooders >>>accosting me about whether I have this permission or that permission for >>>anything from filming a house, to filming people, to filming the sunset. >>>I always say yes (which is a lie). Just saves time. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Cheers, >>> Cotty >>> >>> >>>___/\__ >>>|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >>>||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com >>>_____________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 14/08/2005 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). > > >
