No sir, you are confusing the right to photograph it, and the right to make money from it. They are two separate issues. Any income from ones property by law belongs to the owner of the property unless he agrees differently. The only issue involved is that it is clearly his property, if the photo is so generic that it could be anyones property you are OK. This right is so old it is common law, there must be a billion precedents so a judge does not even have to think about it to make his decision. I of course used my Blazer as an example in an attempt to point out that all I had to do is prove beyond doubt that it is my property in your photo as opposed to a million other white Blazers.
The issue with copyrights, trademarks, and patents is that they have been ordained as property by law thus extending the same property rights to them. And because of that they have to be registered with the government before the courts will hear the case. Yes, that is correct, you own the copyright but if you have not registered it you can not sue anyone over it (although you can apparently now register it ex post facto --seems the constitution is no longer the law of the land). As to right to sue, I have every right to sue any one for any thing (at least in the USA), with the exception mentioned in the above paragraph. Of course if I turn out not to be in the right I may wind up having to pay all legal and court costs both mine and the defendants, so it behooves me to be reasonably sure I am right before I do so. Adam Maas wrote: > This is a very grey area. If your Blazer is parked in a public area when > the picture was taken, you have no standing to sue. If it was on private > property, things get murky (unless the photographer was also on the same > private property, at which point the question becomes one of straight > trespass). > > -Adam > > > graywolf wrote: >> It is not a copyright or trademark issue. It is a property rights issue. >> There >> is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of my Blazer, but since with its >> unique pattern of red primer, or a visible license plate it is clearly my >> particular car, you can not sell photos of it without my permission. >> >> I have not seen the pictures in issue, but if they are clearly of their >> property >> they have a solid case, but if they are just a tree line road that could be >> any >> such road anywhere, they do not. That most likely will be something for the >> courts to decide. >> >> To make matters worse there is apparently a codicil in the will that gave >> them >> the property prohibiting commercial use of the property. If they do not >> fight >> those photographs they could lose the property to family members who >> probably >> resent that he left the property to someone else. >> >> It sounds like a real legal tangle all the way around. >> >> >> >> P. J. Alling wrote: >>> I believe you're wrong on that. You might be able to trademark the image >>> of something. Which will limit the use of images of it in some ways,In >>> fact the Colt Firearms Co. has trademarked the Blue Dome of their former >>> building, and no one else is allowed to use it in connection with gun >>> manufacture or gun sales, but that's really a very limited control of >>> the image. You can't copyright a work of nature, and the copyright on >>> any the buildings on the Plantation if it ever existed at all has fallen >>> into the public domain. His crime is trespass plain and simple, if he >>> had permission to be there, and had a camera with him, then that >>> permission had to be revoked, (or given with stipulations to begin >>> with), for even that to be the case. >>> >>> graywolf wrote: >>>> Well, as to the legality, one does not have the right to sell images of >>>> someone >>>> else's clearly identifiable property without their permission. One does >>>> have the >>>> right to take the photos, without violating any laws of trespass, it is >>>> selling >>>> the images that is questionable. One would assume that the right to the >>>> income >>>> from ones own property is clear, otherwise I want every one on the list to >>>> send >>>> me rent. regardless of who owns the property they live on <GRIN>. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jack Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mr Ham had no right to do what he did. "Private" property rights should >>>>> always be respected especially when privacy is to be compromised by >>>>> being held up to the world to see. >>>>> "Privacy" and "security" are too closely related these days. >>>>> That being said, I'm somewhat ambivalent about being restricted from >>>>> taking pictures of something which is on private property, but from a >>>>> public property position. >>>>> >>>>> Jack >>>>> --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Just found this interesting, what do you guys think? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.thestate.com/local/story/190126.html >>>>>> >>>>>> rg2 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its >>>>>> composition" >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>>>>> and follow the directions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who >>>>> knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. >>>>> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
