Topic: Sorry to bring up this topic again, but ... photo rights

[Indofunk]

I was walking around my neighborhood today, taking pictures, as is my wont. And ever since scapevision (?? was it scape? if not, I'm sorry for the incorrect attribution) started posting his "through the window" shots, I've been trying my own hand at them, mostly with failtacular results Anyways, I plopped my XA up against a restaurant's window and snapped. It was loaded with redscaled Fuji Superia 400 that I decided to shoot at 25, and I'd incorrectly set the aperture at f/5.6 for the very dark internal scene, so obviously the shutter time was so long that I know the photo is destined for the trash bin. Anyways, off I walked.

Two full blocks later, I paused to set up a picture of a gate and door on the same camera, but before I could trip the shutter, a man in a hoodie and a braided beard accosted me. "Did you just take a picture of my restaurant?" I looked at the chest of his hoodie and noticed that it said "Snowdonia", which is the name of the restaurant that I'd fail-pictured just a few moments ago. "Yes" I said, and he immediately launched into a "you know that's illegal and you need to ask my permission before taking any picture of my property" and I started on a halfassed "actually, no, I am well within my rights to take any photo of any person, place, or thing I choose as long as I'm on public property" rebuttal, but then I took a look at his biceps (quite large) and his "backup" that he'd brought (not quite as large, but two large men vs one skinny musician is not very good odds), so I decided to go into my alternative, "begging forgiveness is easier than asking permission" schpiel, which seemed to diffuse tensions a little. At least, I did not suffer any injuries, which in NYC is pretty much cause for celebration.

And now, finally, to the point of this post. He, Tom, the owner of Snowdonia, claimed that since he has a copyright on the name Snowdonia, that any capturing of images of his establishment is illegal without prior consent from him, the owner of the copyright. I call bullshit to the nth degree, not only based on my general principle that as long as I'm on public property I can do whatever the @(*# I want, but also because I can't envision a world (even a stupid, f***ed up world like the US) where simply owning a copyright on a name prevents me from taking a picture of an establishment that happens to have said name plastered somewhere upon its premises (can I just state for the record that nowhere in my failpic is there an appearance of the copyrighted logo?)

Any US law knower-abouters care to comment on this?

[tkmedia]

sounds bs to me, but what do i know.

[scapevision]

ya it was me  first time I hear of copyright attributed to a name, maybe a trademark, yes.

[edthened]

Och Snowdonia izz in Wales, UK ................................................rat meins rat re guys wunno rem imposturs, an a woud tell im in re nicest kinda wae tae ---- aff, so ther     


PS   Och cann a sae rat wurd "----" heir .....................am nae awfie shour abootit        














 

[jharr]

If he's right then you would be in trouble just for typing Snowdonia here. Oh crap! Now I typed Snowdonia! Aaach! He's gonna show up at my house with his New York thug friends and take away my birthday!!

Seriously though, what if you took a photo of his roach motel from across the street? It is not any infringement of his rights unless you are using his trademark to make money. He has no right to your artistic expression and should have no expectation of privacy for a sign visible from the street. What a putz.

[SLVR]

I dont really see any copyright infringement. But it could be a possible privacy violation. Even though the patrons of the restaurant or staff of the restaurant are in a public place, as in the public can go in and eat or use the washroom or whatnot, its still privately owned. Which means that the privacy and "decency" of the patrons is controlled by the owner. The rules kind of lend themselves to the owner of the establishment.

Most of the time people don't seem to care if they are in a window but usually I take a little caution when shooting through windows since if they decide to kick up a fuss, you're in the wrong.

[Indofunk]

I dont really see any copyright infringement. But it could be a possible privacy violation. Even though the patrons of the restaurant or staff of the restaurant are in a public place, as in the public can go in and eat or use the washroom or whatnot, its still privately owned. Which means that the privacy and "decency" of the patrons is controlled by the owner. The rules kind of lend themselves to the owner of the establishment.

Most of the time people don't seem to care if they are in a window but usually I take a little caution when shooting through windows since if they decide to kick up a fuss, you're in the wrong.

Although I agree with the other posts in this thread, you're certainly closest to what "Tom" (his real name) was going for. Which is why I agree that shooting INSIDE a privately-owned establishment is a no-no. But I was really treading the line when I took a picture OF the establishment, whilst standing OUTSIDE the establishment, capturing an image that any citizen walking by could see.

I understand the owner's reservations, but was it really worth sending a thug after me? Also, I 100% believe that I was in the right, and I would go to court for it, but unfortunately the courts don't decide who is right, they just decide whose lawyer is the most expensive 

[Indofunk]

Och Snowdonia izz in Wales, UK ................................................rat meins rat re guys wunno rem imposturs, an a woud tell im in re nicest kinda wae tae ---- aff, so ther     


PS   Och cann a sae rat wurd "----" heir .....................am nae awfie shour abootit        

Although I still understand about 2 of those words, I'm with you. The whole US copyright law is ridiculous. I copyright air! Everyone who breathes owes me $1 per breath you take!

[limr]

First, if he really had legal rights over the name, he would know that it was a trademark, not a copyright. If he actually went through the process of trademarking the name, he would know what it was called, so I'm calling bs.

Second,  even if he did have a trademark, it's only infringment if you try to use the name and design (often even the font is part of the trademark) for a competing business. So, bs again.

Finally, even though it's a privately-owned business, it's still public and there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. So I call bs a third time.

The relevant laws (all federal)
Copyright: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1

Trademark: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-22

Okay, who wants to hire an IP paralegal???

[Indofunk]

First, if he really had legal rights over the name, he would know that it was a trademark, not a copyright. If he actually went through the process of trademarking the name, he would know what it was called, so I'm calling bs.

Second,  even if he did have a trademark, it's only infringment if you try to use the name and design (often even the font is part of the trademark) for a competing business. So, bs again.

Finally, even though it's a privately-owned business, it's still public and there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. So I call bs a third time.

The relevant laws (all federal)
Copyright: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1

Trademark: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-22

Okay, who wants to hire an IP paralegal???

I do! I do! Just to follow me around and call out bs on stupid people and their hired thugs who try to bully me out of taking a picture!!

[Jack Johnson]

Okay, who wants to hire an IP paralegal???

Nice work!

There's also this flyer, which seems to still be current: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

[tkmedia]

If he actually went through the process of trademarking the name, he would know what it was called, so I'm calling bs.

Snowdonia on tess
United States Patent and Trademark Office

not that it matters, but looks like he did.

[Flippy]

First thing - one cannot copyright a name. As others have pointed out one must trademark names.
Second thing, supposing he had a copyrighted anything visible in the window - your picture of it would most likely fall under fair use by being a transformative work - ie. your photograph serves an entirely different use than the original copyrighted material and does not compete with it.
Thirdly, his shop may be private property - but in the U.S. anything that is on private property but can be seen from public property may be photographed from public property.  So unless you went inside his shop to take pictures, or he owns the sidewalk - he just seems like a big douchebag and his business is doing poorly enough apparently that he has time to run down people on the sidewalk and accost them with stories from his paranoid delusions. If he doesn't want people looking in his windows he has the right to paint over them.
Lastly, guy sounds like a genuine A-hole.

PS: decided to look this place up: http://www.timeout.com/newyork/restaurants/snowdonia#tab_panel_3 Sounds like other people think the owner is a D-bag too. Not a nice guy to deal with - even if you're a paying customer.

PPS: If I ran into a guy like Tom Davies I'd tell him that if he had a valid legal complaint, the police would be happy to hear it.

[Indofunk]

Yup, that's Snowdonia. Yup, Tom is a genuine A-hole. Yup, he had nothing better to do on a Wednesday afternoon than to grab a thug and chase down a guy with a cheap pocket camera who took a picture through his window

Full disclosure, I may have been standing in Snowdonia's "outdoor seating area" when I took the picture, but to me that's the equivalent of how you're legally obligated to shovel your sidewalk, but it's still government property.

Although I am 6 foot tall and brown skinned, I am the most pacifistic guy you've ever met. If someone were to insult my mother, I'd be more likely to murmur something whilst walking out the door than to pick a fight. Which is why I went into my apologetic mode instead of my I'm legally correct mode. but now, from the privacy of my bedroom, I can bask in the fact that I'm right and he's an asshole

[cidereye]

Hahaha, what a comedian the owner is. He may have registered
Copyright off his logo but that's it and all he possibly could do.

So by his logic nobody's even allowed to ever take a photograph of say a Macdonalds or Burger King as they both have copyright of their respective logos too.

My response to people like that is to smile and tell them to call the cops. Laughable some of these people. 

[Kayos]

I know it's different in the UK, only time I've been stopped (other than by bored police with clearly nothing to do) is when photographing a Ferrari outside an O2 building, they said I couldn't do it because it was private property including the car park I was stood on. I apologised and explained it was a film camera so couldn't delete it, he was about to say something then the person I was there to meet turned up and she was clearly his superior as he just skulked off and we had our meeting

[Late Developer]

A few observations:

1. Why did this pillock not ask why you took a photo?  If you were a disappointed customer who intended to use the photo to prove some point about the condition of the premises, etc. he might have actually learned something about how to improve his food, quality of service, etc. However, from how you described the confrontation it sounds like you might have been on the receiving end of a right hook - so I can see why you avoided that option.  If you'd said, it looked like a nice place and I'd like the world to see a photo, he might actually have been pleased.  Bringing heavies along is a sign of cowardice.

2. If you were some paparazzi type, why would you have been using an XA? (No disrespect intended to the XA which I know from personal experience is a fine camera).  If (insert name of z-list celebrity here) had been having a quiet meal with some bimbo and thought the photo would be appearing in the press for his wife and the rest of the world to see, then tough.

3. The fact that he's the owner / head burger-flipper of a "restaurant" might suggest that he isn't a trained lawyer and, as such, probably knows the square root of f** all about his legal rights on copyright / trademark infringement, let alone which line you may have crossed. 

4. I would have insisted that he called the local plod. Once the Police turn up, he gets to whine about his grievances and officer Dibble then gets to tell him (a) if there's been a trademark infringement it's a civil matter not a criminal one (I presume that's the same distinction as here in the UK) and (b) if he's assaulted you, you get to have him arrested for a criminal act and Dibble gets to use him / his heavies as target practice if he feels "threatened".

It's a constant concern this side of the pond as well and it's all about ignorance.  Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to feel that the law is what they decide and that bullying / intimidation is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with everything to which they take offence.

[limr]

If he actually went through the process of trademarking the name, he would know what it was called, so I'm calling bs.

Snowdonia on tess
United States Patent and Trademark Office

not that it matters, but looks like he did.

So he DID file (and just a few months ago no less) and yet he STILL doesn't know that it's not a copyright but a trademark? Well, see there I go again, assuming a person with reasonable cognitive skills would have known what he just applied for. Either he is below normal or I have to adjust my definition of normal.

[Flippy]

If he actually went through the process of trademarking the name, he would know what it was called, so I'm calling bs.

Snowdonia on tess
United States Patent and Trademark Office

not that it matters, but looks like he did.

So he DID file (and just a few months ago no less) and yet he STILL doesn't know that it's not a copyright but a trademark? Well, see there I go again, assuming a person with reasonable cognitive skills would have known what he just applied for. Either he is below normal or I have to adjust my definition of normal.

Apparently he has a Ph. D, well at least claims to.  There's something suspicious about a man who has money to blow on over ten years of education, and still has some left to spare for opening a restaurant - yet doesn't even know what a trademark is.  Wonders never cease.

[Terry]

A pillock is still a pillock; a pillock with a PhD is just a bigger pillock.  And that's one UGLY logo...

[tkmedia]

haha
begged for money via kickstarter.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1876257077/snowdonia-gastropub-coming-soon-to-astoria-ny/description

[Terry]

I love the way he pitches the friendliness of the staff on the kickstarter page.  Ironic, innit?  Don't you find it troubling, Satish, that you failed to notice how friendly he was?

I think we need a NYC FW meetup at the pub across the street.

[hookstrapped]

Since you were not using the trademarked name in a way to profit yourself at the expense of the trademark holder, I think that's a non-issue.

The way you phrase your ability to take pictures while you are in a public space is a bit off, I think.  The point isn't whether you are in a public space but whether your subject is in a public space.  So, you standing in the street taking photos with a telephoto lens through the bedroom window of a private residence is not allowed; whereas you taking pics of a restaurant dining area is allowed wherever you stand since a restaurant dining area is a public space.  It's private property but a public space during its open business hours.

[limr]

Since you were not using the trademarked name in a way to profit yourself at the expense of the trademark holder, I think that's a non-issue.

The way you phrase your ability to take pictures while you are in a public space is a bit off, I think.  The point isn't whether you are in a public space but whether your subject is in a public space.  So, you standing in the street taking photos with a telephoto lens through the bedroom window of a private residence is not allowed; whereas you taking pics of a restaurant dining area is allowed wherever you stand since a restaurant dining area is a public space. It's private property but a public space during its open business hours.

Yup. The magic words here are "expectation of privacy."

[Francois]

I know I won't get into this since all I know is the crazy Quebec law (it's actually jurisprudence) but over time I've come to a few conclusions:
1. no matter the law, big biceps always win in the short run.
2. using a telephoto allows you to get a headstart if they come out running after you.
3. if they can't find you or don't know you took the picture, it's harder for them to sue you.

So, this implies shooting like Moriyama is the safest thing you can do. Avoid logos that could be interpreted by google image search. Make the photos just hard to trace back and you're pretty much safe.

[Indofunk]

It's private property but a public space during its open business hours.

Are you 100% absolutely sure of this? As in, would you go to court over it? Because I'm sure there are a lot of biceps that would love to drive their respective fists into my face over this precise point, and outside of the criminal assault charge which I should have no trouble proving, it would be nice to know that I'd be able to win the civil violation of privacy charge as well...

[Indofunk]

1. no matter the law, big biceps always win in the short run.

Muscle in the short run, money in the long run. Democracy!!

[limr]

It's private property but a public space during its open business hours.

Are you 100% absolutely sure of this? As in, would you go to court over it? Because I'm sure there are a lot of biceps that would love to drive their respective fists into my face over this precise point, and outside of the criminal assault charge which I should have no trouble proving, it would be nice to know that I'd be able to win the civil violation of privacy charge as well...

http://lifehacker.com/5912250/know-your-rights-photography-in-public

It seems that unless it's posted, he can't say anything about the picture you already took. You have the legal right there. If you kept taking pictures after he told you to stop, that's when he'd have the law on his side.

"Generally if a private property is open to the public (like a restaurant, retail store, tourist areas, etc) you are allowed to take photographs and video unless it is expressly posted somewhere on the premise that you can't. In most cases it's okay to assume you're allowed to take pictures and video in a shop that doesn't expressly forbid it. However, if a property owner (or store employee) tells you to stop, you have to stop. More importantly, use good judgement and assess the situation and environment before snapping pictures."

[hookstrapped]

I know I won't get into this since all I know is the crazy Quebec law (it's actually jurisprudence) but over time I've come to a few conclusions:
1. no matter the law, big biceps always win in the short run.
2. using a telephoto allows you to get a headstart if they come out running after you.
3. if they can't find you or don't know you took the picture, it's harder for them to sue you.

So, this implies shooting like Moriyama is the safest thing you can do. Avoid logos that could be interpreted by google image search. Make the photos just hard to trace back and you're pretty much safe.

A telephoto lens would likely slow me down.

[Indofunk]

Leonore to the rescue again! (Although I'm not sure lifehacker.com can be used as a precedent in court ) That's pretty cool that I can take pictures inside private establishments unless there's something specifically posted! Of course, there's the risk that I might not see a "no photos" sign, in which case I'd be way in the wrong, but I'll try to be observant.

[SLVR]

However, if a property owner (or store employee) tells you to stop, you have to stop. More importantly, use good judgement and assess the situation and environment before snapping pictures."

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm not sure what's going on with filmwasters but this thread's tone isnt very "filmwastery".

[limr]

However, if a property owner (or store employee) tells you to stop, you have to stop. More importantly, use good judgement and assess the situation and environment before snapping pictures."

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm not sure what's going on with filmwasters but this thread's tone isnt very "filmwastery".

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, the issue is not that the owner asked Satish to stop, but that he felt he needed to threaten and intimidate, not just physically, but also with vague insinuations of legal action that he couldn't even take. He had every right to ask Satish to stop, but he didn't need to be such a jerk about it.

[jharr]

I'm not sure what's going on with filmwasters but this thread's tone isnt very "filmwastery".

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. Because this thread is grinding mercilessly into the details of the law, I am using a dead flower on a cactus spine for the Flower Foul. Take that!


ektar-s2a-002 by James Harr's Photos, on Flickr

[Indofunk]

However, if a property owner (or store employee) tells you to stop, you have to stop. More importantly, use good judgement and assess the situation and environment before snapping pictures."

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm not sure what's going on with filmwasters but this thread's tone isnt very "filmwastery".

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, the issue is not that the owner asked Satish to stop, but that he felt he needed to threaten and intimidate, not just physically, but also with vague insinuations of legal action that he couldn't even take. He had every right to ask Satish to stop, but he didn't need to be such a jerk about it.

Now there's my veggie chikkin dinner right there

Also, I had "stopped" taking my one picture quite a while ago and I was walking away from the establishment at the rate of one block per thug, and it was rather obvious I wasn't intending on returning.

[Terry]

To move this back on topic, I suggest that we start a kickstarter campaign to fund the Filmwasters Cafe which will have a big sign saying that photography on the premises is required.

[tkmedia]

agitated that the cafes rodinal section has no seating.

[limr]

To move this back on topic, I suggest that we start a kickstarter campaign to fund the Filmwasters Cafe which will have a big sign saying that photography on the premises is required.

No doubt.

And one will have to specify if ordering coffee for drinking or for developing.

[SLVR]

I think I'm agitated that the rodinal section is too noisy.

[Indofunk]

I'm agitated that there's so much agitation going on! Can't we just stand?

[limr]

I don't know, I'm a little worried about overexposure.

[Bryan]

We could have thugs beat up people for not taking pictures, or using digital cameras.

[Francois]

We don't need to do that, we just need to have them watch one hour of a mix of awkward family photos and the people of walmart...

[tkmedia]

Sick of the long queues of patrons ordering complex dilusion of HC110. Just order a oneshot!

[Indofunk]

I'll have one shot, barkeep.

[jharr]

Yes, but do I go for my usual Adonal or do I splurge and get the top shelf Rodinal? Do I get a free shot on my birthday?

[tkmedia]

I'll have one shot, barkeep.

What size Xtol?

[Indofunk]

I'll have one shot, barkeep.

What size Xtol?

Make it a double.

[Terry]

To redeem the reputation of the police, a friend and I were doing some early-morning LF shooting a couple of months ago when a cop walked up and asked me what I was doing.  When I told him, he said he used to work as an assistant in a portrait studio and started talking cameras and sheet film.  Nice guy.

[Francois]

I know not all cops are bullies. I had two in my family and they were the sweetest guys in the world!

[gsgary]

I have had police tell me i cannot take photos, i politely tell them to F off and get the correct information