copyright issues?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Terence wrote:

> If I take a picture of an artist/musician at a concert, and that
> picture subsequently gets used in a magazine or newspaper (or a book
> for that matter) - is written permission needed from the artist? Or do
> the rights to that photo belong to me to do with as I see fit?

You can't record the artists music or take pictures at a concert
without permission. If you don't have permission, you can't use
the pictures or sound recordings.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Terence" <auriga_m38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120656251.401057.276150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If I take a picture of an artist/musician at a concert, and that
> picture subsequently gets used in a magazine or newspaper (or a book
> for that matter) - is written permission needed from the artist? Or do
> the rights to that photo belong to me to do with as I see fit?
>
> I'm sure this has been discussed before, but this is all new to me.

As the OP said, newspapers and magazines can be different when you are
"reporting". I'd bet you definitely cannot use it in a book, or generally
anywhere else.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:41:12 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote
(in article <m2oe9fafjb.fsf@gw.dd-b.net> ):

> "Terence" <auriga_m38@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> If I take a picture of an artist/musician at a concert, and that
>> picture subsequently gets used in a magazine or newspaper (or a book
>> for that matter) - is written permission needed from the artist? Or do
>> the rights to that photo belong to me to do with as I see fit?
>
> Neither.
>
> In a magazine or newspaper, the picture is very probably legal; that's
> "editorial" use, related to news reporting, which has special
> exceptions in the law.
>
> The book may be also, but it's easier for a book not to be I think;
> consult a lawyer, or at least your editor.
>
> The copyright of the photo belongs to you *but* there are still things
> you can't do with it without permission from the subject -- any
> "commercial" use, the most obvious and blatant example being
> advertising, being among them. People have some rights over the
> commercial use of their likeness (they have to be "recognizable" ).
>
>> I'm sure this has been discussed before, but this is all new to me.
>
> And complicated, too!
>
> Years ago I read a good book called _Photography and the Law_. I
> don't know if there's an updated current version, or if there's a
> better reference to use these days.
>

Without permission of the owner and/or promoter of the concert, the pictures
are illegal to TAKE much less use.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:04:34 -0700, george wrote
(in article <1x%Ae.3051$wG5.989@fe03.lga> ):

>
> "Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BEF9CB190008F44CF02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:41:12 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote
>> (in article <m2oe9fafjb.fsf@gw.dd-b.net> ):
>>
>>
>> Without permission of the owner and/or promoter of the concert, the
>> pictures
>> are illegal to TAKE much less use.
>>
>
> I don't believe that is true...they are merely TRYING to keep you from
> taking photos...if it were illegal, they'd
> call the police on you (have you EVER heard of this happening?). Taking
> photos for your own use isn't illegal
> though the promoter may try to make it a condition of your ticket purchase
> that you do not do so...for it to be
> legally binding, you'd have to be told prior to your ticket purchase and
> agree in writing.
>
>

If you are on "private" as opposed to "public" property you may legally take
photos ONLY with the permission of the owner or his legal agent.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEFA30A60019368EF02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:04:34 -0700, george wrote
> (in article <1x%Ae.3051$wG5.989@fe03.lga> ):
>
>>
>> "Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.BEF9CB190008F44CF02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:41:12 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote
>>> (in article <m2oe9fafjb.fsf@gw.dd-b.net> ):
>>>
>>>
>>> Without permission of the owner and/or promoter of the concert, the
>>> pictures
>>> are illegal to TAKE much less use.
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe that is true...they are merely TRYING to keep you from
>> taking photos...if it were illegal, they'd
>> call the police on you (have you EVER heard of this happening?). Taking
>> photos for your own use isn't illegal
>> though the promoter may try to make it a condition of your ticket
>> purchase
>> that you do not do so...for it to be
>> legally binding, you'd have to be told prior to your ticket purchase and
>> agree in writing.
>>
>>
>
> If you are on "private" as opposed to "public" property you may legally
> take
> photos ONLY with the permission of the owner or his legal agent.
>
>

Many (most?) venues I can think of (like San Jose's Arena) were built with
some/all
public funds...I'd think THAT would make it public property if my tax
dollars were used
for financing construction, land purchase, or tax breaks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Funk wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:07:03 -0400, "george" <nowhere@newsonly.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:0001HW.BEFA30A60019368EF02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:04:34 -0700, george wrote
>>>(in article <1x%Ae.3051$wG5.989@fe03.lga> ):
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:0001HW.BEF9CB190008F44CF02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:41:12 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote
>>>>>(in article <m2oe9fafjb.fsf@gw.dd-b.net> ):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Without permission of the owner and/or promoter of the concert, the
>>>>>pictures
>>>>>are illegal to TAKE much less use.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe that is true...they are merely TRYING to keep you from
>>>>taking photos...if it were illegal, they'd
>>>>call the police on you (have you EVER heard of this happening?). Taking
>>>>photos for your own use isn't illegal
>>>>though the promoter may try to make it a condition of your ticket
>>>>purchase
>>>>that you do not do so...for it to be
>>>>legally binding, you'd have to be told prior to your ticket purchase and
>>>>agree in writing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you are on "private" as opposed to "public" property you may legally
>>>take
>>>photos ONLY with the permission of the owner or his legal agent.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Many (most?) venues I can think of (like San Jose's Arena) were built with
>>some/all
>>public funds...I'd think THAT would make it public property if my tax
>>dollars were used
>>for financing construction, land purchase, or tax breaks.
>>
>
>
> While true, the particular company that's selling the tickets may have
> conditions that go with the ticket purchase.
> I'm sure you can arrange a time when you can take photos when the
> arena isn't being otherwise used, though. Maybe.

Hi...

Wasn't your white house built with tax dollars?

Try camping on the front lawn. Maybe taking a spare
room. Eat dinner in the dining room

Pass the butter, please.

Ken

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1120656251.401057.276150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Terence" <auriga_m38@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If I take a picture of an artist/musician at a concert, and that
> picture subsequently gets used in a magazine or newspaper (or a book
> for that matter) - is written permission needed from the artist? Or do
> the rights to that photo belong to me to do with as I see fit?
>
> I'm sure this has been discussed before, but this is all new to me.

Copyright issues can become very complex. You didn't even say where in
the world the photo was taken and where in the world the magazine is
published and distributed. The concert promoter might claim copyright
ownership, or might not. Did you sign an agreement with the magazine?
What about the individuals who were in the photograph? These are
relevant facts.

Free legal advise is worth what you paid for it. Seek qualified legal
counsel if you want an authoritative answer to your question.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Copyright issues can become very complex. You didn't even say where in
> the world the photo was taken and where in the world the magazine is
> published and distributed. The concert promoter might claim copyright
> ownership, or might not. Did you sign an agreement with the magazine?
> What about the individuals who were in the photograph? These are
> relevant facts.
>
Since when can someone claim copyright for intellecuatal property that does
not exist in tangible form? See
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html. There are however other
ways to protect intellectual property (trademark, patent, trade secret). If
the photographer had the right to take pictures during the show, he owns the
copyright of his images since he has obtained his work legally.

Gregor

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cmnQe.20$Lh.11@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, GTO
<gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes
>
>> Copyright issues can become very complex. You didn't even say where in
>> the world the photo was taken and where in the world the magazine is
>> published and distributed. The concert promoter might claim copyright
>> ownership, or might not. Did you sign an agreement with the magazine?
>> What about the individuals who were in the photograph? These are
>> relevant facts.
>>
>Since when can someone claim copyright for intellecuatal property that does
>not exist in tangible form? See
>http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html. There are however other
>ways to protect intellectual property (trademark, patent, trade secret). If
>the photographer had the right to take pictures during the show, he owns the
>copyright of his images since he has obtained his work legally.
>
>Gregor
>
>
Gregor, I think you are confusing copyright with the right to privacy.
In most of the western world at least, copyright belongs to the creator
of a work, from the moment of its creation, and can only be assigned to
another by written agreement. Individuals may (it varies according to
jurisdiction) be able to sue for violation of privacy if photos are
published of them in a place where they have a reasonable right to
privacy, or for defamation if they are published in such a way as to
bring them to ridicule or to assert views to them which are embarrassing
(e.g. for advertising). The owner of a property could sue you for
damages if you take photos within his property without his permission.
None of these result in the other party acquiring copyright in your
photograph, even if it was taken "illegally" (which is itself a fairly
inappropriate term).

David
--
David Littlewood

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <c%nQe.26$Lh.3@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, GTO
<gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes
>David:
>
>You did not read my post. I most certainly do not confuse copyright with
>privacy. Please read the URL, which I have provided in my post and
>familiarize yourself with the term "tangible form".
>
>Gregor
>
Gregor,

It was the last sentence I found dubious. You said "he owns the
copyright of his images since he has obtained his work legally". What I
am disputing is the implied converse of this, that if he had not had
consent to take pictures he would not own the copyright.

David

>
>"David Littlewood" <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:QwMOC9QrXgEDFw3M@dlittlewood.co.uk...
>> In article <cmnQe.20$Lh.11@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, GTO
>> <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> writes
>>>
>>>> Copyright issues can become very complex. You didn't even say where in
>>>> the world the photo was taken and where in the world the magazine is
>>>> published and distributed. The concert promoter might claim copyright
>>>> ownership, or might not. Did you sign an agreement with the magazine?
>>>> What about the individuals who were in the photograph? These are
>>>> relevant facts.
>>>>
>>>Since when can someone claim copyright for intellecuatal property that
>>>does
>>>not exist in tangible form? See
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html. There are however
>>>other
>>>ways to protect intellectual property (trademark, patent, trade secret).
>>>If
>>>the photographer had the right to take pictures during the show, he owns
>>>the
>>>copyright of his images since he has obtained his work legally.
>>>
>>>Gregor
>>>
>>>
>> Gregor, I think you are confusing copyright with the right to privacy. In
>> most of the western world at least, copyright belongs to the creator of a
>> work, from the moment of its creation, and can only be assigned to another
>> by written agreement. Individuals may (it varies according to
>> jurisdiction) be able to sue for violation of privacy if photos are
>> published of them in a place where they have a reasonable right to
>> privacy, or for defamation if they are published in such a way as to bring
>> them to ridicule or to assert views to them which are embarrassing (e.g.
>> for advertising). The owner of a property could sue you for damages if you
>> take photos within his property without his permission. None of these
>> result in the other party acquiring copyright in your photograph, even if
>> it was taken "illegally" (which is itself a fairly inappropriate term).
>>
>> David
>> --
>> David Littlewood
>
>

--
David Littlewood