Who owns the photos?
#61
OSO Content Provider
Commercial Member
Those 2 stories Dee has posted again both relate to (INSIDE AN ARENA) .
Offshore is in the open public domain where you are allowed to shoot. If you can shoot, no one can tell you what you can do with your property.
Photographers have rights !
Offshore is in the open public domain where you are allowed to shoot. If you can shoot, no one can tell you what you can do with your property.
Photographers have rights !
#62
Gold Member
Gold Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Marathon
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Lucididee;2323927]I think the bottom line is you can take a picture wherever you want and pretty much do what you want with them. But the gray line and controversy starts when they are sold for a profit.
Thank you .......... THAT is the bottom line is this particular instance.......AND... another party brought the photographer in to shoot for them.
Just my .02 because I was there....I'm honestly not taking sides due to my affiliation, I try very hard to see both sides of stuff......and there are big mis-understandings here. Bashers, feel free, I am not family.
I am glad I finally got to meet you Sharkey......sorry I didn't have more time to talk to you. After KW I will. Hang in there. PD
Thank you .......... THAT is the bottom line is this particular instance.......AND... another party brought the photographer in to shoot for them.
Just my .02 because I was there....I'm honestly not taking sides due to my affiliation, I try very hard to see both sides of stuff......and there are big mis-understandings here. Bashers, feel free, I am not family.
I am glad I finally got to meet you Sharkey......sorry I didn't have more time to talk to you. After KW I will. Hang in there. PD
#63
VIP Member
VIP Member
Myself, I hate fine print, but if someone has exclusive rights to an event and has a contract and states it on their website, it is what it is. Is it fair to others??? Just makes getting exclusive rights to the organization (or anything for that matter) more desirable. And unfortunately, any other photographer that shows up than is really just a paparazzi.
Oh hell, even if you own your house, you cannot do whatever you want, you have to get permission (permits) from the town and then your fees (taxes in this case) goes up (unless you file for the 10yr abatement). And then if you still do what ever you want, when you go to sell the house, if it's not on the blueprint you will more than likely have to knock it down.
Again, I'm not debating the right to shoot, the debate is the right to sell for profit. All the laws I see about the right to shoot do not mention the right to sell your copyrighted material. Need to find cases in which people won in court that it allowed, and then you may have to find it per state. Sometimes things are just not that simple, but when you want to protect your property and rights you got to go the extra distance.
Last edited by Lucididee; 11-01-2007 at 10:35 AM.
#64
Let's keep this discussion simple. Unless you are under contract and have specifically given up your rights to your shots, or you are shooting as someone's employee, or shooting certain military installations, or depriving someone their reasonably expected right to privacy, the following applies:
1. If you can see it, you can shoot it.
2. If you shoot it, you own it.
3. If you own it, you can sell it.
1. If you can see it, you can shoot it.
2. If you shoot it, you own it.
3. If you own it, you can sell it.
#65
VIP Member
VIP Member
Let's keep this discussion simple. Unless you are under contract and have specifically given up your rights to your shots, or you are shooting as someone's employee, or shooting certain military installations, or depriving someone their reasonably expected right to privacy, the following applies:
1. If you can see it, you can shoot it.
2. If you shoot it, you own it.
3. If you own it, you can sell it.
1. If you can see it, you can shoot it.
2. If you shoot it, you own it.
3. If you own it, you can sell it.
If someone takes pic of you in your boat on a run. That photog owns the rights to the pics and can sell it to whomever they want. Right? And if the pic gets sold to multiple major publications and gets a nice paycheck for that photo, it is fine. That even though an organization paid for the event & that the owner who also paid to enter the event, has abosolutely NO RIGHTS and deserves no compensation nor notority. It's the photographer that owns ALL the RIGHTS and ALL the PROCEEDS. Do you agree?
#66
Ok then, in a completely hypothetical situation:
If someone takes pic of you in your boat on a run. That photog owns the rights to the pics and can sell it to whomever they want. Right? And if the pic gets sold to multiple major publications and gets a nice paycheck for that photo, it is fine. That even though an organization paid for the event & that the owner who also paid to enter the event, has abosolutely NO RIGHTS and deserves no compensation nor notority. It's the photographer that owns ALL the RIGHTS and ALL the PROCEEDS. Do you agree?
If someone takes pic of you in your boat on a run. That photog owns the rights to the pics and can sell it to whomever they want. Right? And if the pic gets sold to multiple major publications and gets a nice paycheck for that photo, it is fine. That even though an organization paid for the event & that the owner who also paid to enter the event, has abosolutely NO RIGHTS and deserves no compensation nor notority. It's the photographer that owns ALL the RIGHTS and ALL the PROCEEDS. Do you agree?
The law is very clear on this.
Same holds true if you are George Clooney getting a star on Hollywood Blvd, or Britney goin to the liquor store for a bottle of JD, etc, etc, etc
#67
VIP Member
VIP Member
The law is very clear on taking pics, but not very clear on the selling of them. The selling of the pics is where the law can be differrent. And different at evert event, it's up to the organizer. There is that gray line between Public Domain and a permitted event. Some event planners control the media and some do not. That is the only point I ever tried to make. I give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#68
The law is very clear on taking pics, but not very clear on the selling of them. The selling of the pics is where the law can be differrent. And different at evert event, it's up to the organizer. There is that gray line between Public Domain and a permitted event. Some event planners control the media and some do not. That is the only point I ever tried to make. I give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone correct me if my assumption is wrong. I am gonna go read up a little more.
#69
Geronimo36
Gold Member
When I had my wedding my wife and I had our picture taken under a gazeebo outside the wedding hall (public domain). Subsequesntly the wedding hall owner saw the picture and wanted use the photo to promote the wedding hall. The contacted the photographer to ask if they could use his picture (he gladly accepted) but first called my wife and I to ask our permission to use the photo and release our rights to it, we said yes.
#70
When I had my wedding my wife and I had our picture taken under a gazeebo outside the wedding hall (public domain). Subsequesntly the wedding hall owner saw the picture and wanted use the photo to promote the wedding hall. The contacted the photographer to ask if they could use his picture (he gladly accepted) but first called my wife and I to ask our permission to use the photo and release our rights to it, we said yes.