The owner's request to hold the property sovereign is only binding on its current custodians to press trespass charges which exist under current law.
Jack --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find the facts of the case (at least as presented) make the suit > without > merit. How was anything damaged so that "damages" could be claimed? > If the > photographer had made $100/shot instead of the amount reported, there > > probably would not be a suit. It's not about whether the > photographer had > the right to be there or the right to photograph, it's about money. > > How can a person, now deceased, place a legally binding restriction > on the > sale of images of the land for any commercial gains", on someone > they never > knew, and for how long? The binding restriction would seem to be on > the > entity the land and plantation were granted to, not the entire > planet. > > Now, if said photographer, was formerly a member of the foundation > and was > knowingly and deliberately photographing with foreknowledge of the > issue, > maybe there's something to it, but even then I think it's very gray. > Or it > could be that he requested, was denied permission, and went ahead > anyway. > > I suspect that either 1) the suit it meritless or 2) there's an > important > element to the story which was not published in the report. > > Tom C. > > >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: OT: Photographer Being Sued > >Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:10:50 -0400 > > > >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 === message truncated ===> -- > 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html -- 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.
