Photog Sued For Photographing Public Art « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Other Nikon stuff / news / commentary

Photog Sued For Photographing Public Art

(47 posts) (12 voices)
  • Started 3 years ago by NikoDoby
  • Latest reply from kyoshinikon
  • Related Topics:
    1. Fair Use of News images
    2. Similar composition? Get sued!
    3. Guy Sues Because His Portrait Used To Sell Yogurt
    4. Photographing Christmas Lights at Night?
    5. correct write speed for photographing sports

Tags:

  • Copyright
  • Lawsuit
  • Public Art
« Previous12
  1. Gentoo

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    JDeV said:
    I'm no expert in this, but google Chuck Gentile. He's the photographer here in Cleveland that photographed the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. H e stood on a public sidewalk when he took the pictures. If I remember correctly, employees of the Rock Hall even removed trash cans from the site so they wouldn't be in the shot. He marketed one of the shots as a poster, and the Rock Hall sued him for infringing on their trademark. After a number of years, Gentile won and was allowed to market his poster. It did cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees, and loss of work while he was fighting this. I don't know how this would compare to the issue here with this artist.

    Jon

    That's what I'm saying and this carries even more weight. He was standing on a public sidewalk and photographed a private place. Olympic Sculpture Park is a very public place and the pieces are donated to the public.

    Remember the ampersand (and sign) of love and life and the father and sun statue I posted a while back? Those were taken in Olympic Sculpture Park.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. Gentoo

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    Yeah that's right I remember that case. I'm not sure how it ended up though because of appeals back and forth. In that case I think the Hall of Fame is in the right. How can they let this guy make money off of their trademark? The photo was taken from a public sidewalk but the building is clearly the focus of the shot. I'd post the picture but I don't want to get sued!

    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.htm

    You're right and I agree with this. He may have been in public but the subject of his shot was not.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. poster

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 779

    offline

    It doesn't matter whether he was on a public sidewalk and took a picture. The point is that the sculptor's art was an integral part of his image. It wasn't just something that happened to be in the frame. Would the picture with the woman's foot alone have the same price? Nope. The bronze cast footsteps formed the integral part of the image. They contributed significantly to the "worthiness" of the image.

    I don't know the case of the photog who took that picture of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. From the little that i just read on Google it seems that the case was about on'e freedom to expression. Moreover the ability of a person to take a picture of a landmark. I don't know. I would read the case, but I am too busy.

    "The US court has accepted that people buy images of buildings because they like the images, not because they mistakenly believe them to be authorised merchandise."

    http://www.swanturton.co.uk/ebulletins/archive/CTSchuckgentile.aspx?template=articlesprinter.aspx

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. qwerty

    member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 12

    offline

    There are many times when we do things we are aware of and sometimes we are not aware of.
    Taking pictures is one, where we are not constantly aware of the legalities but we see beauty, framing, composition and we click. Later on, we add value to it by trying to put it on the wall or sell it for few quids, basically see a motive for our action. That is however generally POST capture.

    I make it sound simplistic but the problem is only a problem because we make a huge thing of a simple issue, then drag in lawyers. Who wins?
    One ideology over the other. One might get some satisfaction that one is doing the right thing but on the other hand the 2 quids you made on the picture and 200 quid lost to lawyers.
    So who wins again. You or the lawyers?

    Its pretty simple. How far do you want to push that button.
    I'm not at all saying one should be passive about ones work and have every man walk on your carpet. But common sense is the best judgment and it appears to be least common when really called upon.

    If I were to see a child eat a ice cream cone that has in bold letters McDonald written over it. (Not that I would encourage anything like that to anyone)
    In the background, you have a statue of Ronald MacDonald sitting on the bench.

    You call it a product placement or branding when both parties are paid.

    The child happens to be sitting on the same bench as the clown. I snap away because the emotion of the child is compelling. Do I care if Ronald just happened to be sitting beside the girl?
    Now someone see that picture and says great shot.
    Are they talking about Ronald being there or the ice cream or are they interested in the picture of the girl.

    The publication puts it out and Ronald decides to show up at the party with his lawyers. You think common sense will be present at the table full of lawyers?
    No! then its one view over the other. No one is listing and profit is the only motivated goal.
    Can I ask the team of lawyers wait a second sure I have taken the picture but what about the free press it has generated for McDonald. Are you going to pay me for having used your products, location and have given you free press coverage.
    Clearly at that point it would be a completely deluded activity. The knife cuts both ways. But the initial thought or idea was purely shaped by emotion and not the end product per say.

    We just have to be a little graceful and appreciate each other rather than fight tooth and nails over something that clearly has sucked out all the joy the picture would have given to anyone.
    I don't see anyone queuing up to buy that stock picture after this.
    So the loss here is, the talent, the picture and the consumer.
    The photographer might not want to shoot anymore after this, that is one less person taking pictures.
    I know this borders on the morally and philosophical aspect of our lives but at our very core we are all sensitive people, each one of us.

    Anyways I have nothing against the McDonald group or any other franchise. It was a just an example used in my illustration and I wont be happy if they come knocking at my doorstep.

    cheer up :)
    every one

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. poster

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 779

    offline

    see this article

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19phot.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=5ad9e04e5cebea59&hp=&ex=1142830800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1142749074-kXhkUbeCY/xTITnScvx5LA

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. Gentoo

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    I think we can all see that this comes down to how good an attorney one has as well as state by state laws.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    Copyright laws are national and not statewide. To a certain extent they are also international, but I'm no lawyer I just play one on TV. It always helps to have a good hard boiled, sleazy attorney so that's why I always have warprints defend me in court :^)

    Anyway the reason I posted this is so you guys can be aware of the problems you could face selling your photos if you are not careful.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. Gentoo

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    Copyright laws are national and not statewide. To a certain extent they are also international, but I'm no lawyer I just play one on TV. It always helps to have a good hard boiled, sleazy attorney so that's why I always have warprints defend me in court :^)

    Anyway the reason I posted this is so you guys can be aware of the problems you could face selling your photos if you are not careful.

    But how they're enforced varies from state to state because many states have additional laws.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    I don't think that's accurate but I'm sure warprints can tell us more.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. warprints

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 769

    offline

    Hey, I'm not sleazy, I'm of a higher class - I'm slimey.

    Copyright laws are Federal statutes, but Gentoo is partially correct. The actual copyright laws do not vary from state to state, but some states do have their own statutes regarding trademarks and what sorts of things can be trademarked. For the most part, the enforcement of copyright laws should not vary much from state to state.

    On another note - some of the comments touch on the amount that is being claimed as damages in this suit. Keep in mind that in most states, you can state any amount of damages youwant to claim in your petition. I've often seen claims approaching or exceeding one million dollars that ended up settling or ending in verdicts for under $10,000. That's why some states have passed statutes prohibiting the statement of amounts of damages in petitions, unless the suit is over "special" damages that are susceptable to specific calculation -- If I lend you $50 and you don't pay it back, I can say I'm suing for $50. Just cause this sculpter "demands" $60,000 in his petition doesn't mean anything.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. jjreason

    senior member
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 61

    offline

    What about all the photos of the St. Louis Arch? Statue of Liberty? Tower Bridge in London? Eiffel Tower?

    I hate people like this. Taking advantage of people by having weird rules and or suing them over trivial items. If you need money so bad maybe you should have chosen a legitimate profession that has a steady income.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    yeah like a stock photographer :^)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. jjreason

    senior member
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 61

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    yeah like a stock photographer :^)

    Exactly! I feel the same about them. Lets be honest here. That sculpter isn't suing for his rights, hes suing because he wants the money. If he needs the money, get a real job. If a stock photographer is complaining about his income, get a steady job. If an in home day care provider wants to have paid vacations, go get a job that has paid vacation, don't make your customers pay you for not doing anything. If a car salesmen wants Saturdays off, go get a job that has Saturdays off. You gotta pay to play. I could go out right now and find a lower paying job that provides me with 9-5, M-F, health insurance, and paid vacation. Would I make a LOT of money? No. Would I have a job, with steady income, paid vacation, health insurance, and a set schedule? Yup.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    Yeah but in today's economy you take whatever job you can find. It's not a perfect world and you can't just quit your crappy job and sit around waiting for the perfect one to come along. Do you have the job you always wanted growing up as a kid?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. warprints

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 769

    offline

    jjreason said:
    What about all the photos of the St. Louis Arch? Statue of Liberty? Tower Bridge in London? Eiffel Tower?

    Whoa !! Not everything that someone built or designed is protected by copyright or trademark. I can probably take a whole bunch of photos of your house, from a public place, and make money off of the photos, without violating any law. But if your house is somehow unique and you get a trademark on it's "image", then I can't gain commercially from it without your consent. Big difference.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. jjreason

    senior member
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 61

    offline

    I realize that, but if its in the public, how is one supposed to know?! The artist should take the 60 bucks and an apology from the person, and then put a nice pretty copyright symbol rather than a fine print sign on his piece of art to avoid this rather than suing any innocent bystander for copyright infringement. But that won't happen cause it will ruin his art. IMO this should get thrown out for fair use. Warhol painted campbells soup cans and sold them as art, this person took a portrait of a woman walking on the sidewalk that included the piece of art....cry me a river.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. jjreason

    senior member
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 61

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    Do you have the job you always wanted growing up as a kid?

    No, but who does? I do have the one I wanted since I started college.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. JDeV

    senior member
    Joined: Aug '09
    Posts: 54

    offline

    As far as how the Rock Hall case turned out, I don't remember the ruling being overturned. I'll check with the local photographers here. If I can locate Chuck Gentile I'll ask him.

    Jon

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    I don't remember but I think the case was settled some how? I know he's still selling his posters but I don't know if he's paying some kind of "royalty" fee or something like that? It would be good to know how this case ended since the info is over 10 years old.

    jjreason, not knowing about a law is never an excuse for breaking it and my point about the job was why should it matter how much or little a person makes in their job? I'm sure the majority of big $$$ lawsuits are initiated by people who have big $$$ to begin with. People who can afford to pay warprints big $$$ by the hour for example.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. Gentoo

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    jjreason said:
    Exactly! I feel the same about them. Lets be honest here. That sculpter isn't suing for his rights, hes suing because he wants the money. If he needs the money, get a real job. If a stock photographer is complaining about his income, get a steady job. If an in home day care provider wants to have paid vacations, go get a job that has paid vacation, don't make your customers pay you for not doing anything. If a car salesmen wants Saturdays off, go get a job that has Saturdays off. You gotta pay to play. I could go out right now and find a lower paying job that provides me with 9-5, M-F, health insurance, and paid vacation. Would I make a LOT of money? No. Would I have a job, with steady income, paid vacation, health insurance, and a set schedule? Yup.

    Here Here!!!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. Gentoo

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 1,538

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    Yeah but in today's economy you take whatever job you can find. It's not a perfect world and you can't just quit your crappy job and sit around waiting for the perfect one to come along. Do you have the job you always wanted growing up as a kid?

    Ok, good points here too. Wow I like this thread.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. kyoshinikon

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 1,200

    offline

    The sculptor "probably" was a misunderstood drop-out who hated nothing more than flipping burgers while he waited to graduate... I can understand suing, but for $60,000 when it cost the artist $0... Sell more freaking art!!! $60,000 is probably worth more than the photographers bag, car, and mortgage combined... Quote "I hate to do this but (insert) I want $60,000 so I can take that cruise I've never been able to take to the Bahamas without having to get a better job)... As an artist myself it is reasonable to sue for $60, or $600, or even $6000, but for $60,000... @#!!*&#

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous12

Reply

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com