Common sense is fairly uncommon, most especially where the law is concerned.
Tom C wrote: > Common sense ususally trumps all, if it's common enough. > > > > 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 17:13:45 -0400 >> >> Let's see? >> >> First it is almost always about money. Or if not money then what one >> perceives >> as their honor. >> >> Second, you can put almost any restriction in a land title and it is >> binding on >> everyone who owns the land land thereafter. You can even put in a >> clause where >> the title reverts if the clause is ever violated. >> >> Civil Law is not about wishes, or even about fairness, it is about >> what is >> written and about what has been decided by courts in the past. Law is >> not really >> that difficult to understand. Spend about a year reading and you will >> have a >> good grasp of it. Then if you actually want to be a lawyer you need >> to read >> thousands of actual cases so you have a good grasp of the details, >> but just to >> understand the basics the details are not necessary. >> >> >> >> Tom C 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 >> >> 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: >> 10/7/2007 10:24 AM >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- 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.
