It’s (maybe) the LAW!!
Photo by Niamor83 , subject to a creative commons license
Legal odds and ends:
The city fathers of Ft. Lauderdale think they can ban photography in public ares of the city by fiat. A judged disagreed. The Port Authority in New York has banned photos of its trains. A lawsuit is coming.
In the world of copyright, a court has ruled a graffiti artist’s stencil of a photograph is a violation of the photographer’s copyright. Duh.
In a closer case, a federal court ruled against a well known painter for his use of several of the plaintiff’s photographer’s shots in his paintings.
It’s not a good idea to use – without permission – an iconic photo in your Tony winning Broadway musical.
There is no more difficult job in photography than shooting weddings. A photographer has little or no control of the shoot, is on a tight schedule and is under pressure to preserve her clients’ special day in appealing photographs. Here’s what can happen to a hapless shooter who isn’t up to the job. It probably isn’t the best idea to post a photo of the bride in her underwear on your website.
Unless agreed otherwise, a photographer normally retains the copyright in photographs he takes for someone else. This is elementary. But its also elementary that companies try to shaft photographers.
Sometimes it is a very bad idea to try to cash in on your copyright, even if the law’s on your side.
While you may photograph what you see that’s public, that doesn’t mean you can publish your photo or use it commercially if your subject is a copyrighted public sculpture.
A right wing blogger expresses contempt for a Flickr photographer’s take down notice.
A museum prohibits photography of its works of art. Can you photograph – and post to Flickr -your photo of that adorable Renoir? Better not!
This photo should be illegalPhoto of Annie Stoner, subject to a creative commons license
Read all of VISIONS