Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/02/18/golden-gate-bridge-officials-d.html
…
4 Likes
So wait, by composite you mean that moon was never in that position? Bleh, kinda hokey.
I guess if you can prove the guy trespassed, charge him with that. But I don’t think you can demand he removes said photo.
16 Likes
Just because he trespassed, that doesn’t change the copyright/ownership of the photo. They can either charge him with trespassing (presumably using the photo, which has been modified, as the only evidence), or offer him a plea deal - no charges in exchange for removing the photo. Just saying he can’t have the photo because he trespassed to get it doesn’t have any legal basis.
30 Likes
Doesn’t the existence of drone photography moot the argument that “he must have trespassed to get the shot”?
15 Likes
Drones are very much prohibited near the bridge so I’m not sure that helps his case.
8 Likes
Yeah it seems like the government version of “do not look me in the eyes!”
7 Likes
Bruce…
Bruce…
Be on your guard. The District’s power grows…it rises to its peak under the hour of a Blood Moon. By its glow, the aimless spirits of security guards that were slain in the name of the light return to flesh. Bruce…please be careful.
9 Likes
It kind if sounds like that’s what they’re doing. “Just be cool and take down the photo and nobody has to get charged with trespassing.”
8 Likes
I think that the photo would be a great piece of evidence in his trespassing trial. Claiming proceeds of the photo seems unlikely, though.
4 Likes
Why doesn’t he just say his Photo Assistant took the picture?
They should track down that guy instead.
7 Likes
Based on Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office v. FERC - I would say they can’t charge him with anything or demand anything - they have no standing - he’s not currently trespassing and there is no law against taking photos. edit /s
5 Likes
He’s one guy, not a filthy fossil fuel company. Of course he can be charged.
8 Likes
He’s charging $2,633.00 for a 40x60 print. I guess crime does pay.
8 Likes
edited my post due to lack of clarity.
I pay maybe 10 bucks, but that’s tops…
1 Like
You can take pictures of people - cops too - when they’re in public spaces. If they want to stop people taking pictures - they should move it indoors.
Besides - it was a public project.
7 Likes
The question isn’t whether they have the right to stop people from taking pictures of the bridge; it’s one of the most photographed pieces of architecture in the world and as far as I can tell no one has ever tried to prevent the public from photographing it.
The question is whether this photographer should be allowed to post and profit from pictures that were only made possible via illegal trespassing.
3 Likes
So are you more familiar with this location (I am trying to remember where you live.) I am assuming the trespassing area is for safety reasons?
1 Like
Probably; it could also have something to do with the foundations on SF side of the bridge basically sitting on top of Fort Point, which is a national historic landmark.
3 Likes
That’s his standard price-- his printer takes about $1000, he makes $1600 profit. Perfectly reasonable for an artist to make a living that way. (and it’s entirely possible that he’s sold a handful of such prints in his career-- the vast majority opting for conventional prints at smaller sizes).
7 Likes
