Topic: Photography/Permissions and Copyright discussion

[MyTwoSense]

The show has gotten funnier.  And I am happy for the publicity... and I know I read something somewhere about lawyers preventing things like this, but...

"Stormy's on Euclid", the St. Regent (which is apparently in the Sohio Building)?  They can't just, say, throw out "Johnny's Downtown", or "Around the Corner in Lakewood", or "The Ritz Downtown".  would make things seem so much more genuine, and, I would imagine be a pretty big boon to the locations they selected.

The probably didn't get permission.  I say you folks should right the producers of the show.  hint...hint.   

[ClevelandOhio]

i was surprised they didn't show a picture of outside the rock and roll hall of fame.

[MyTwoSense]

i was surprised they didn't show a picture of outside the rock and roll hall of fame.

They probably dont have the rights to show (film) the building.

[ClevelandOhio]

They got rights to show 200 public square

[ClevelandOhio]

Wouldn't the RRHOF like the free advertising.

[MyTwoSense]

Wouldn't the RRHOF like the free advertising.

It's not free is someone is using your business (or likeness) for monetary gain (it's an ad supported show) without your permission.
 
You kids have so much to learn............

[ClevelandOhio]

Wouldn't the RRHOF like the free advertising.

It's not free is someone is using your business (or likeness) for monetary gain (it's an ad supported show) without your permission.
 
You kids have so much to learn............

Thank you master

[8ShadesofGray]

The Rock Hall has traditionally been very stringent about usage of the building's likeness. I've heard stories of warnings against using the building even in far less commercial projects.

[MyTwoSense]

The Rock Hall has traditionally been very stringent about usage of the building's likeness. I've heard stories of warnings against using the building even in far less commercial projects.

I dont blame them.  It's a unique building.  Id want to get paid for visuals!

[MD88PILOT]

The Rock Hall has traditionally been very stringent about usage of the building's likeness. I've heard stories of warnings against using the building even in far less commercial projects.

I dont blame them.  It's a unique building.  Id want to get paid for visuals!

Can you do that with a building?  In other words, does the building have a right to privacy - metaphorically? 

[Loretto]

Yeah, I've never understood that stuff.  Like years ago I heard that the Eiffel Tower collects a fee on nights shots but not day shots or some crazy crap like that.  So is the only thing stopping FCE and whoever the owners of Key Tower and 200 PS from bankrupting the local photography scene bad press?

[MyTwoSense]

Yeah, I've never understood that stuff.  Like years ago I heard that the Eiffel Tower collects a fee on nights shots but not day shots or some crazy crap like that.  So is the only thing stopping FCE and whoever the owners of Key Tower and 200 PS from bankrupting the local photography scene bad press?

This is getting off topic, but there are a lot of variable.  IE  Key Tower, Terminal Tower/Tower City are a buildings with naming rights.  200 Public Square is not.  The RRHOF is an Iconic building.  If this was a movie, ever building manager would need to be notified for clearance.  If a promo for the city, same things but each building would need to have some sort of "credit".  Very loosely thats how it works.  when we do shows, we have to get all kinds of permission to shot the building or a restaurant exteriors interiors.

[MayDay]

^Technically you don't *have* to get permission for footage of a public landmark but if it's going to be the focus of whatever, it's probably a good idea to clear it with the building owners. Now, if you refer to the building by name and it's a trademarked name/title, that's where the legal area gets a little gray. Once you start selling images of a specific building for profit - *that's* where securing permission is paramount. 

The Rock Hall sued a photographer for selling posters of a photo that only showed the Rock Hall, with the title "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame".
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.htm

[CleveChiNola]

^photo geek

[MyTwoSense]

^Technically you don't *have* to get permission for footage of a public landmark but if it's going to be the focus of whatever, it's probably a good idea to clear it with the building owners. Now, if you refer to the building by name and it's a trademarked name/title, that's where the legal area gets a little gray. Once you start selling images of a specific building for profit - *that's* where securing permission is paramount. 

The Rock Hall sued a photographer for selling posters of a photo that only showed the Rock Hall, with the title "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame".
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.htm

 
Thats why I said there are a lot of variables.  Especially if you're using the image/photo for profit.

[mrnyc]

dont hold your breadth on public buildings -- thats coming on in the form of taxes and fees for using those images for profit.

not to get too far off topic as we've had this discussion before, but image rights also means uo, ssp, wiredny and sites like them will be in trouble one day soon if they run for even a small profit instead of getting certified as non-profit/educational. 

[C-Dawg]

^Technically you don't *have* to get permission for footage of a public landmark but if it's going to be the focus of whatever, it's probably a good idea to clear it with the building owners. Now, if you refer to the building by name and it's a trademarked name/title, that's where the legal area gets a little gray. Once you start selling images of a specific building for profit - *that's* where securing permission is paramount. 

The Rock Hall sued a photographer for selling posters of a photo that only showed the Rock Hall, with the title "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame".
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.htm

Also from the site:
Federal trademark law protects "inherently distinctive" features of a company's product or image, he said. The law has been interpreted to protect characteristics such as the gold color used on Kodak film packages and the pink color on Owens Corning fiberglass insulation.

You can trademark a color?

Also, keep in mind in certain types of media, there are far fewer rules. News media is an obvious one. You can film whatever building you want. Documentary is supposed to be another one, but documentarians get threatened with lawsuits all the time for trivial matters (as they say, it's a medium created in hell).

[mrnyc]

^ no...and yes -- i dk about federal trademarks, but if its on film packages or visible in insulation and it identifies with a product and if somebody then uses it for profit (like in a movie or ad) you can arrange image rights!

[David]

You can trademark a color?

Absolutely. Think of the highly distinctive orange color of the Reeses cup wrapper, for example. You can easily associate a color with a brand.

[MyTwoSense]

^Technically you don't *have* to get permission for footage of a public landmark but if it's going to be the focus of whatever, it's probably a good idea to clear it with the building owners. Now, if you refer to the building by name and it's a trademarked name/title, that's where the legal area gets a little gray. Once you start selling images of a specific building for profit - *that's* where securing permission is paramount. 

The Rock Hall sued a photographer for selling posters of a photo that only showed the Rock Hall, with the title "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame".
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.htm

Also from the site:
Federal trademark law protects "inherently distinctive" features of a company's product or image, he said. The law has been interpreted to protect characteristics such as the gold color used on Kodak film packages and the pink color on Owens Corning fiberglass insulation.

You can trademark a color?

Also, keep in mind in certain types of media, there are far fewer rules. News media is an obvious one. You can film whatever building you want. Documentary is supposed to be another one, but documentarians get threatened with lawsuits all the time for trivial matters (as they say, it's a medium created in hell).

C-Dawg that isn't necessarily true.  As I said earlier there are variables. 

[Ram23]

http://www.ustrademarklawyer.com/RockandRoll.htm

It seems there are a few different decisions that are all splitting hairs…

Personally I spend almost all of my time doing either architecture or photography, and am a huge supporter of photographer’s rights.  I say, if you can see it from a public right of way, you can depict it however you want to... whether it’s for art, information, or profit.  Sadly, my opinion doesn’t serve as judicial precedent

[smith]

I was on the Superior Viaduct a few months back shooting the downtown skyline and some security guard came up to us and told us he would confiscate our cameras if we took picture of those condo/apartment buildings that are adjacent to the viaduct.  I didn't really care because I wasn't there to shoot pictures of those buildings.

[mrnyc]

^ whoah woah woah! short answer...they cannot do that it is illegal.

over time myself and some of the mods and others have refined the in's and out's of this topic over at ssp -- i suggest everyone who posts photos here at uo also take some time to review it:

the photographer's right
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=129445

[smith]

That's what I figured, but as I said I didn't plan to take pics of those buildings so I didn't feel like making an issue with some rent-a-cop who thinks he's tough.