Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-17-2010, 09:44 AM   #1
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Copyright Question to Chew on...

OK, Really NOT that important... but for those of us who have nothing else to do... what are your thoughts?

That Just Beaver is playing tonight in Saskatoon... tickets say no cameras or recording devices ... copyright... blah blah blah...

We all know the thousands of teenage girls will have their dad's rebels and cellphones, and P&S... all for personal use... nothing too off-side so far...

The local paper, publish frontpage this morning a call for photos from the concert tonight... they claim they will publish them...

This to me seems to go against the copyright of the performance...

Again, no money or anything... therefore no one cares... but I found it odd... kinda like the press asking for home video from the fans of pro football teams to show on their clip shows....

09-17-2010, 09:52 AM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
this could really start a debate.

The press, should have access and accredited press have an undeniable right to publish images of celebrities, or otherwise cover newsworthy events.

Generally, there will be a press pass or two handed out for this explicit reason.

Sounds to me like th epress is trying to incite people to go out and brake the rules, with perhaps some promise of "legitimizing" the photographic efforts of those attending with cameras, against an explicit written ploicy of the venue/promoters, by publishing the results.

Could it be that the paper in question did not get a press pass???

Seem to me the press is going beyond their rights here, but that is just me.

Hopefully no serious photographer goes, and gets caught, raising yet another thread about the restriction of photography and photographers rights, although I can hear the defence now. Why have I been singled out when there are 20,000 other people with cameras in the audience taking photos? One could claim discrimination, or profiling or what ever.


OK guys and gals, I have thrown out the gauntlet, run with it
09-17-2010, 09:55 AM   #3
Veteran Member
icywarm's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,278
Original Poster
That is what I thought!!! But...

Only one daily in the city... owned by largest media company in the country... should have gotten a pass...
09-17-2010, 11:04 AM   #4
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
After the paper published something like that, the venue will likely clamp down very tightly on ALL cameras. They can, within their rights, throw out anyone caught shooting a photo, or recording audio/video even with a cell phone camera. Personally I am all for photographer's rights but when you enter a venue like this, part of the contract you agree to when you buy the ticket is to follow the conditions of entry. If one of those conditions is "No Photography" so be it. Violate it at your own risk. Frankly, the performers have just as much right to protect their copyrighted material as we do to protect our copyrighted photographs.

What this really sounds like to me is a cheap paper trying to get copy for free. It could also open the participating photographers individually to civil litigation regardless of the paper claiming "editorial usage."


Last edited by MRRiley; 09-17-2010 at 11:12 AM.
09-17-2010, 12:51 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
What this really sounds like to me is a cheap paper trying to get copy for free.
that's what I thought too, but the OP says biggest media company in the country. Go figure.
QuoteQuote:
It could also open the participating photographers individually to civil litigation regardless of the paper claiming "editorial usage."
Yeah., as I posted thiis could really get interesting. I think the press is going too far here personally.

otherwise there has to be more to it. I can't see why the media would not have a press pass for this, unless someone is expecting things to get out of hand, and want's to control any evidence of what ever happens.

ALl we can do is speculate/.
09-17-2010, 03:18 PM   #6
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
There is nothing I can think of in US copyright law (no, I'm not a lawyer, but yes, I've actually studied the matter, and read most of the actual text of the law) that would allow someone to claim a copyright over the image of a concert. That is, someone claiming you can't take pictures because it violates someone's copyright is utter BS. The same can't be said for an audio recording or video recording that includes audio - these do indeed violate the composers' (but not the performers') copyright in the music if done without permission.

Of course, a venue has every right to disallow photography just on a whim - it's their private property. And they have every right to sue you for breach of contract should you make your pictures public after agreeing when buying the ticket not to photograph. Whether they'd be likely to win or not I can't say - I know nothing about tort law. But I am pretty confident that copyright would not be the issue.
09-17-2010, 05:39 PM   #7
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
Actually Marc, I believe many performers copyright the visual or theatrical aspects of their performances just like they copyright the auditory aspects. This is especially true for performers who are also the composers or producers of the material. Just like a motion picture, the entire performance is, or can be, part and parcel of a collectively copyrighted work.

09-17-2010, 07:49 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 499
Well, I'll throw in my 2c here...

I would LIKE to be able to take pictures anywhere I want. However, that CAN infringe on others rights and I must show respect for 1) the law, 2) the rules set within private property, 3) other people's rights to privacy, and (most importantly!) 4) common human decency and respect for others.

So, IMHO they have every right to demand and expect no pictures be taken...and the right to sue should someone violate that agreement (most likely made upon the purchase of the tickets in the fine print). The newspaper is out of line because it is literally asking people to violate the 'no photography' agreement. What a bunch of hacks...if they are that concerned about breaking the rules they should sneak their own photographer into the concert to take pictures. Of course, I would hope that individual would be sued afterwards along with the newspaper...or better yet caught on the way in and tossed to the curb.

How hard is it to simply follow the request of "I don't want you to take a picture of me?" I know there's all kinds of paparazzi out there that make a living off this, but I don't respect what they do. I know that public figures and people simply in public have less of an expectation to privacy. At the end of the day, where's common human respect for others?

Ok...there's my rant
09-18-2010, 08:24 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Actually Marc, I believe many performers copyright the visual or theatrical aspects of their performances just like they copyright the auditory aspects. This is especially true for performers who are also the composers or producers of the material. Just like a motion picture, the entire performance is, or can be, part and parcel of a collectively copyrighted work.
I hadn't heard of that, but it does make sense. In order for that to stand in court, though, one would have to prove that the visual aspect of the performance actually met the standards for copyrightability. I can see an elaborate stage show meeting that standard, but probably not the average concert. And even in the case of a copyrightable show, a handful of still photographs of the show would most likely be considered "fair use", just as it is considered fair use to reproduce short musical excerpts from copyrighted compositions in a textbook, passages from a book in a review, etc. But in any case, I'm sure you're right - that is an aspect I hadn't considered.
09-18-2010, 07:31 PM   #10
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
Any copyright or other so-called IP protection is only of value if it can be enforced. Ubiquitous recording of images and sounds makes enforcement effectively impossible. Anyone can enter any venue with a tiny concealed lens+mic and record (or monitor and transmit) a performance without anyone else being aware of their actions. As the operative devices become smaller, and of higher quality, and even more ubiquitous, restrictions will be quite meaningless.

Oh sure, steps can be taken, have been taken. Long ago in my wasted youth, I attended a show at Buffalo Bills Stadium featuring Eric Clapton with Freddie King, and The Band. I saw many cassette recorders, people holding up mics, etc. A lot of f*cking good it did them -- the sound was so trebly as to be nearly impossible to listen to, let alone record. Any venue can render the audiovisuals so unpleasant that recording is futile. Now, a venue operator could effectively EMP-blast all attendees so their electronic devices are fried, or at least detect those devices and force their removal. THAT is enforcement.

Otherwise it's ex-post-facto enforcement by legions of much-beloved attorneys. Yikes. Fire-up the law schools, we need to crank-out another million solicitors! Ooh, don't we love to live amidst ubiquitous litigation? I suspect this regime will soon collapse under its own weight.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I'll go a bit further. I recently read of a study addressing the question: How did Germany go from a rural agricultural society in 1800 to an industrial giant in 1900? And how did Britain, where the Industrial Revolution was born, nearly get its shorts eaten by Germany in the early 1900s? The answer: copyright, or lack thereof. Britain had strong copyright laws from the 1700's. Publishers got quite rich. Literature, especially technical works, were printed in small expensive editions that were bought by a small wealthy elite. Technology advanced slowly.

But in 1800, Germany wasn't even a country, just a maze of fiefdoms within a dying empire. Copyright COULDN"T be enforced until German unification late in the 1800s, and was weakly enforced even then. The result? Publishers still printed small expensive editions for the elites, but also, cheap paperbacks proliferated, especially of technical works. So knowledge spread quickly, technology advanced rapidly, and the rest is history.

There's a modern parallel. China hasn't been too respectful of international copyrights. And China has gone from rock-bottom under Mao, to the world's second-largest economy now, a major industrial powerhouse. The lesson? IP protections benefit entrenched elites. Ignoring IP protections benefits industrial development, and thus other elites, and stimulates societies.

No, individual artists and artisans and inventors are NOT (usually) among those elites. But long-term IP laws certainly benefit mega-corporations more than individual creators. In a Darwinian world, IP flouters will eventually eat the shorts of IP wallowers.
09-19-2010, 01:36 AM   #11
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
I doubt that the average Chinese peasant benefits much from their country's policies ignoring copyrights from other countries. For some reason however, I suspect that China's ruling elite ruthlessly protect the IP of their own companies or governmental entities.

Last edited by MRRiley; 09-20-2010 at 03:54 PM. Reason: typo
09-19-2010, 11:22 AM   #12
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
I doubt that the average Chinese peasant benefits much from their country's polices ignoring copyrights from other countries. For some reason however, I suspect that China's ruling elite ruthlessly protect the IP of their own companies or governmental entities.
Except for the level of manufacturing that is going on now in China, some of which will most likely be based on copyright or patent infringement.
The average Chinese peasant may not give a whit, but now he may have a factory job that pays a little better than running around in a rice paddy.
09-19-2010, 07:49 PM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
........
I'll go a bit further. I recently read of a study addressing the question: How did Germany go from a rural agricultural society in 1800 to an industrial giant in 1900? And how did Britain, where the Industrial Revolution was born, nearly get its shorts eaten by Germany in the early 1900s? The answer: copyright, or lack thereof. Britain had strong copyright laws from the 1700's. Publishers got quite rich. Literature, especially technical works, were printed in small expensive editions that were bought by a small wealthy elite. Technology advanced slowly.

But in 1800, Germany wasn't even a country, just a maze of fiefdoms within a dying empire. Copyright COULDN"T be enforced until German unification late in the 1800s, and was weakly enforced even then. The result? Publishers still printed small expensive editions for the elites, but also, cheap paperbacks proliferated, especially of technical works. So knowledge spread quickly, technology advanced rapidly, and the rest is history.
there is no doubt that technology can advance slowly if ideas are held too closely, but what does that have to do with recording images or sound from a concert where you, as a concert goer explicitly accept that this should not take place, its part of the T&C of the ticket.
QuoteQuote:

There's a modern parallel. China hasn't been too respectful of international copyrights. And China has gone from rock-bottom under Mao, to the world's second-largest economy now, a major industrial powerhouse. The lesson? IP protections benefit entrenched elites. Ignoring IP protections benefits industrial development, and thus other elites, and stimulates societies.
but their economy is not built on technical innovation, but on artifically low labour rates that are held there by the countrys refusal to let it's currancy float as it should based upon balance of trade. Their products are low technology, although this is changing, and they are working very hard at taking over market sectors one at a time, using the low exchange rate to damage the industries in other countries
QuoteQuote:
No, individual artists and artisans and inventors are NOT (usually) among those elites. But long-term IP laws certainly benefit mega-corporations more than individual creators. In a Darwinian world, IP flouters will eventually eat the shorts of IP wallowers.
Again this has nothing to do with musicians etc.... but if you follow your parallel example, we are then again headed for a world war, because china will, as germany did, think they could actually take it over.
09-20-2010, 04:25 PM   #14
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
100% on point Lowell!
09-21-2010, 04:21 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
100% on point Lowell!
Mike considering some of our debates and different points of view I am glad there is always some common ground that can be found
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
blah, copyright, copyright question, photo industry, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
copyright jolee1990 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 10-29-2009 06:48 AM
Copyright advice pa79 General Talk 9 10-27-2009 07:28 AM
Chew on this/// RipDaJacker Photographic Technique 14 12-12-2008 06:06 AM
Lemon Chew pentapixel Monthly Photo Contests 0 05-30-2008 08:25 PM
Watermark/copyright? PHOTOCOP Photographic Technique 2 03-15-2008 01:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top