Skimming through that list I’m calling sixteen kinds of bullshit. No citations of relevant intellectual property law, not even a single anecdotal example of someone being sued for taking a picture of one of those things from a public vantage point.
Sure, you might come across an overzealous security guard or something who CLAIMS that you aren’t allowed to take a picture of some publicly viewable piece of architecture or another but that doesn’t mean that such legal restrictions actually exist.
Again: this photographer is under scrutiny for trespassing, not for photographing one of the most photographed objects in the world.
I agree and in this case it seem they are only trying to prevent him from taking pictures of the bridge from a illegal location, it does not seem like they are saying that the bridge has some sort of protection against all photography by virtue of copyright.
I’m just saying that preventing the public from photographing public structures, from the public space, by abusing copyright, is definitely a thing. Your argument frames that as if that is a ridiculous concept. While I agree that it is ridiculous, it does actually happen so it’s not as far fetched as you make it out.
For example, let’s look at what is probably actually the most photographed object in the world:
I know I saw some examples on Boingboing too. This one using trademark law comes up:
And it turns out EU law around this is kind of a mess?
But I kinda feel like I still haven’t found the case that I remembered.
And to address your final point:
I disagree. If he was under scrutiny for trespassing, they could sue him for trespassing, have him arrested for trespassing, whatever. That is clearly not what they are doing. If he had been trespassing there and had not later published the photo, there would be no problem, so it is about the photo.
It’s only about the photo in the sense that they don’t want to encourage trespassing by allowing him to profit from a photo that was only made possible via trespassing. They didn’t threaten to sue him for copyright violation, they threatened to charge him with trespassing if he didn’t take the photo down.
I fairly clearly stated I agree with you on that, and I have never said otherwise, why do keep bringing this up again? Is there some straw sticking up from my collar or something?
In the article it states:
The photo was taken from an “illegal angle.”
The Bridge District claims the angle shows that the photographer must have trespassed into a restricted area in order to get the shot and wants the photo removed from his website
the Bridge District, […] issued a cease and desist letter
The District is seeking any profits Getty has made from the image
So I get how you are reaching that conclusion but there is no actual stated threat in the article. If we could read the cease and desist letter we could see if that is in fact what they are using as the leverage for their demand but for now we just don’t know.
I think it would even be a reasonable demand, depending on the fine for trespassing I suspect the photographer will then keep the photo up. My guess is that, with the exposure he is getting today, his profits will be higher then a trespassing fine will be.
However, certain forms of misdemeanor trespass (for example, refusing to leave a battered women’s shelter after being asked to do so by a manager) carry a potential county jail sentence of up to one (1) year.28
2.2. Penal Code 602.8 PC trespass as an infraction
One very simple – and common – form of California trespass is often charged as an infraction.
Specifically, if
you willfully enter someone else’s land without permission, and
that land is enclosed by a fence OR has “no trespassing” signs posted at intervals of no less than three (3) to a mile,
you would be charged initially with an infraction, under Penal Code 602.8 PC.29
The penalties would be:
A seventy-five dollar ($75) fine for a first offense, and
A two hundred fifty dollar ($250) fine for a second offense on the same land.30
However, for a third offense on the same land, you will be charged with misdemeanor trespass.
The article states that he was cited once - a second cite would be a $250 dollar fine - the third could be a fine up to a thousand dollars and jail time - I’m not in a position to say if the ‘fines’ are better for the artist than the profit from the photo - but if it were me I’d tell them to fly a kite.
Would they be able to use the argument that he “had to be trespassing” to take the photo, or would they have to have direct evidence? Because this seems more like a shakedown because they knew they couldn’t prove the actual trespass.
That’s a good question - it would depend - however as a non-lawyer I’d say they could cite him for the 250 and he’d have little recourse to fight it - as a cite is non-criminal - he could appeal to the city, but the red tape quickly becomes way more hassle to fight than a ticket.
If they wanted to get him for criminal charges (again as a non-lawyer) it looks like for a ‘fenced in posted’ area they’d have to cite him twice first - and then on the 3rd time they’d have the option to go for criminal - and a good lawyer could argue against proof - I mean I can buy a camera today for under 1k that can zoom into a plane 3 miles away and read the tail numbers.
The felony statute - requires actual malice (such as violating an order of restraint with intent to harm). I don’t think they could charge him with the felony version no matter how often he took pictures from a restricted area - depending on how much money he makes from these it may or may not be worth his time to flaunt the law - but of course while I don’t recommend violating the law - I have a hard time feeling like this guy really deprived the city of full use and enjoyment of their property in this instance.
Most of those examples are not in the US, where it generally is true that you can photograph anything in public.
The Hollywood sign is not protected from photography by copyright, but is a trademark. As I understand it, that would only limit commercial use of photos of the sign, but a tourist could freely photograph it.
I can’t find anything to back up the point about hotels on the Vegas strip, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t let you take photographs when you’re on their land, but if you’re on a public street I don’t see how they could prevent it (in the US).
In other countries, notably France, copyright on architectural works is extended to cover photos of those works, which is why the louvre and the light installation on the Eiffel Tower are on there.
Does this fall under the Son of Sam law, i.e. it is illegal for criminals to make a profit off their crimes by selling their story, etc? He was criminally trespassing, so he can’t profit off photographs that resulted from it?
On the other hand, this is reminiscent of an interesting period in Colorado legal history after recreational marijuana was legalized, but before any licenses for dispensaries were issued. It was illegal to buy marijuana, it was not illegal to sell marijuana, it was illegal to grow marijuana, but it was legal to possess up to 1 oz. of marijuana. Where did it come from? Didn’t matter. It was legal and it was referred to as the “magic ounce.” Perhaps this is the “magic photograph.” How did he get it without trespassing? Doesn’t matter.
