I will point out that I did say commercial gain, and with this I am through with this thread.
P. J. Alling wrote: > That isn't quite true, there is an exception for Fair use and in most > cases art prints fall under fair use. We are getting further and further > from the case in question, but in that case copyright law is being > twisted out of recognition. You don't own a copyright ion your truck or > image. That's not why you get a release. > > graywolf wrote: >> The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the >> right to >> commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of >> someone >> property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos of >> them >> you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see sample >> below). Why is that hard to understand? >> >> SAMPLE (Note this is probably not adequate for nudes, or if big money is >> involved): >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> PHOTO RELEASE >> >> I, ___________________________________, hereby give PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME, and >> his >> assignees permission to use photographs of me, and/or my property, taken by >> him, >> for any lawful purpose. >> >> SIGNATURE: _______________________________ DATE:_______________ >> (Parent or guardian must also sign if under 18 years of age.) >> >> ADDRESS:_______________________________________________________________________ >> >> PHONE: ______________________ >> E-MAIL:__________________________________________ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> --graywolf >> >> >> P. J. Alling wrote: >> >>> This just so completely confuses copyright and trademark infringement >>> with a bit of the we can control everything cant the Dixie Plantation >>> has for the basis of their suit that it's just scary. It seems we >>> photographers are already paying for this. >>> >>> 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.
