You're under ARREST!

http://tinyurl.com/buq32

But I hear the subway law has been changed already in New York.
-Rich

RichA wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/buq32

But I hear the subway law has been changed already in New York.

Very amusing. Come out here to suburban Northern California sometime.
There is a very large credit card company, whose name I should not
divulge here on the net (but it begins with a 'V' and has four
letters), who have built a headquarters here in an unmentionable
suburb about 24 miles south of San Francisco. On their property, they
erected a somewhat interesting fountain.

One day, I tried taking some pictures of said fountain from a public
sidewalk. I was stopped by a private security guard, who told me that
taking pictures of the fountain was not allowed. I mentioned that I
was on a public sidewalk, and could not see any reason for the
restriction. He was adamant that I could not take pictures of the
fountain, but at least did not ask me to erase my already-taken
apparently illicit digital images.

I asked him the name of the company who had erected the fountain, and
he told me that he was not allowed to tell me the name of the company
(nor is it posted anywhere on any of their several buildings).

It took only a very little bit of sleuthing to find out the name of
the company. I haven't complained to them, but I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Oh well, the images weren't that interesting anyhow, as it turned out.

"Tim Smith" wrote in message
...
... I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.

"Ryan Robbins" wrote:

"Tim Smith" wrote in message
.. .
... I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.

Sorry, was trying to be ironic. The whole episode still sticks in my
craw.

shhhhhh
http://www.edgehill.net/PB068253.jpg


Ryan Robbins wrote:
"Tim Smith" wrote in message
...

... I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.


Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.



--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Tim Smith wrote:
"Ryan Robbins" wrote:


"Tim Smith" wrote in message
. ..

... I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.


Sorry, was trying to be ironic. The whole episode still sticks in my
craw.




Then make it stick in their craw by publishing the photos. Or send them
to me and I'll publish them and email those twits the URL. I'll quote
an unamed source for verification.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Ryan Robbins" wrote:

... I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.

Well, for one thing a fountain is likely not an "architectural
work" covered under 17 USC 120, so you are probably infringing
on the fountain's copyright.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Ryan Robbins" wrote:

... I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.

Well, for one thing a fountain is likely not an "architectural
work" covered under 17 USC 120, so you are probably infringing
on the fountain's copyright.

Perhaps it's time to bring up the Pebble Beach Cypress, the Eiffel
Tower at night ...

Here's a list that includes accessible features of the world, which if
represented photographically might place you at the wrong end of some
action (apparently at the whim of the copyright holder):
http://www.stockindustry.org/resourc...lreleases.html

--
Frank S

"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump."
—William Claude Dukenfeld

It took only a very little bit of sleuthing to find out the name of
the company. I haven't complained to them, but I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

If you were going to sell the images you might need to get a release from
the owner of the fountain.


--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Frank ess wrote:
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Ryan Robbins" wrote:

... I suspect that I
shouldn't publish or use in any public way pictures of their
public-viewable yet photographically-secret fountain.

Why not? We can't preserve our rights unless we exercise them.

Well, for one thing a fountain is likely not an "architectural
work" covered under 17 USC 120, so you are probably infringing
on the fountain's copyright.

Perhaps it's time to bring up the Pebble Beach Cypress, the Eiffel
Tower at night ...

Here's a list that includes accessible features of the world, which if
represented photographically might place you at the wrong end of some
action (apparently at the whim of the copyright holder):
http://www.stockindustry.org/resourc...lreleases.html

I don't doubt that some of the items on the list are really verboten,
but things like the Flatiron building--erected in 1902--and the various
vehicle logos are unlikely to be a problem. Any copyright, if that's
what it is, on the building is long gone--I think at the time it might
have been copyrighted, it was a 28 year run, with 28 possible as a
renewal. Copyrights, once lost, cannot be regained. I've shot photos
for articles of many of the vehicle logos listed and never had a
problem.

Disney? I wouldn't take a single photo of a Disney character for
publication without an ironclad promise, in writing, that it was OK,
but as far as shooting kids with the characters for personal use, it
isn't likely to be a problem. Disney is protective, not stupid. They
don't want to irk the customers. They don't even ask the parents to
control the little monsters.

A lot of the rest would only apply to advertising photography. Logos
used in news as is the case around here today (a young teacher ran off
the road on the way to work yesterday--her car hit a tree and became
three pieces [the wreck killed her]. It doesn't matter what brand the
car is, though it's unlikely to be a Porsche or Maserati. There's no
winning a suit where the car logo is reproduced and the company wants
it retracted).

Right now, there's a lot of excessive push and shove by security types.
Suddenly, even rent-a-cops think they have the power to arrest someone,
or to push them around on public property. They don't. A polite
reminder that they're vulnerable to losing their income for the rest of
their lives unless they behave might help in some cases. Rent-a-cops do
not even have the power of arrest, beyond that of any citizen, on
property they're hired to protect. I sometimes wonder why they're even
allowed to carry guns. Use of the weapons would almost certainly result
in jail time if they weren't protecting themselves from attack.