Am I being sued?!!!????

[Steve5D]

Do we know how this ended up, if at all?

Frankly, I don't see where the guy was being sued. A letter from someone saying they're contacting their attorney does not constitute a lawsuit.

Was the image the OP put on his website offered for sale? I have some photos on my website which cannot be purchased, so I don't think it's that unusual.

Sure would be nice to know how this one turns out...

 

[skieur]

Provided that the photograph is non-commercial and editorial, as well as several other provisions concerning ownership.

we all like to play Perry Mason from time to time. But seriously, at least do a little research.

Why not follow your own advice for a change?

"For example, photographing and publishing a photograph of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship that is permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public, does not infringe copyright (s.65). This does not apply to other public art, such as murals. ....., you can also take pictures of buildings without infringing copyright."

the above is from Australia: one of the most restrictive countries related to photography. The US and Canadian act say the same thing.

"The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act" and others from several states state some version of the following:" First, the owner of the copyright in an architectural work cannot prevent the use of photographs of the building."

The "knowledge" of copyright in your posts seems to be equal to the "knowledge" you "demonstrated" of your legal rights in other posts.

I think a little research on your part is long overdue.

skieur

 

[Tight Knot]

Do we know how this ended up, if at all?

Frankly, I don't see where the guy was being sued. A letter from someone saying they're contacting their attorney does not constitute a lawsuit.

Was the image the OP put on his website offered for sale? I have some photos on my website which cannot be purchased, so I don't think it's that unusual.

Sure would be nice to know how this one turns out...

Hi Steve,

As of right now, I have heard nothing else from the emailer. Either way, I have removed the photo from my website. Yes, it was for sale, but to be honest, it was more of an oversight on my part, as A. It was not a good quality photo (the sculpture was really nice, but I did not get a good photo of it), and B. I had no idea that I wasn't allowed to sell such photos.
This has been a really good learning experience for me in many ways, and I hope that it was nothing more than a real life seminar, that doesn't end up costing me.
If anything else comes up, I will update this post.

 

[unpopular]

Why not follow your own advice for a change?

Out of step - Page 1 - News - Seattle - Seattle Weekly

Why do you have to be always right about everything. It's a frustrating position to hold when you're wrong about so very much.

 

[skieur]

Even in the US, you cannot photograph a copyrighted work and, as the main subject in your photograph, try and sell it. Whether you want to sell the photo or not, it IS on your site for sale right now. Landmarks and statues are 100% copyrightable. Hell, photographing the Eiffel tower at night is even considered copyright infringement because of the lighting design on it.

To be copyrightable, the work needs to be in a fixed form. This is written in the Copyright Act of several countries. A lighting or fireworks display is NOT a fixed form and therefore NOT copyrightable whether the owners WANT it to be or not.

By the way some works may be copyrightable but that DOES NOT MEAN that taking a photo of the work violates copyright. The main example of this is architectural design.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Covering an other item. To violate Trademark law, "passing off" must take place. Taking a photo of a trademark such as the coke graphic does not violate any trademark, however taking a photo of the coke graphic and then putting it on your own bottle of a brown, fizzy drink and "passing it off" as the real thing DOES violate trademark law.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Why not follow your own advice for a change?

Out of step - Page 1 - News - Seattle - Seattle Weekly

Why do you have to be always right about everything. It's a frustrating position to hold when you're wrong about so very much.

The low amount was due to the modfication of the work, not taking a photo of it. Other details are not mentioned.

skieur

 

[mjhoward]

Even in the US, you cannot photograph a copyrighted work and, as the main subject in your photograph, try and sell it. Whether you want to sell the photo or not, it IS on your site for sale right now. Landmarks and statues are 100% copyrightable. Hell, photographing the Eiffel tower at night is even considered copyright infringement because of the lighting design on it.

To be copyrightable, the work needs to be in a fixed form. This is written in the Copyright Act of several countries. A lighting or fireworks display is NOT a fixed form and therefore NOT copyrightable whether the owners WANT it to be or not.

By the way some works may be copyrightable but that DOES NOT MEAN that taking a photo of the work violates copyright. The main example of this is architectural design.

skieur

You are ignorant:
Eiffel Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[skieur]

Even in the US, you cannot photograph a copyrighted work and, as the main subject in your photograph, try and sell it. Whether you want to sell the photo or not, it IS on your site for sale right now. Landmarks and statues are 100% copyrightable. Hell, photographing the Eiffel tower at night is even considered copyright infringement because of the lighting design on it.

To be copyrightable, the work needs to be in a fixed form. This is written in the Copyright Act of several countries. A lighting or fireworks display is NOT a fixed form and therefore NOT copyrightable whether the owners WANT it to be or not.

By the way some works may be copyrightable but that DOES NOT MEAN that taking a photo of the work violates copyright. The main example of this is architectural design.

skieur

You are ignorant:
Eiffel Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not at all. France has a judicial system with a different history, different basis (guilty till proven innocent in criminal cases), etc. than any other western judicial system. That decision is POLITICAL in nature and violates international copyright agreements and other copyright laws in the other Euro countries. France has had "limited" success in trying to enforce its unique view of copyright.

You have probably not even noticed that my user name is French. I obviously speak, write and read French so, you would need to be pretty "ignorant" to assume that I would not be familiar with the Eiffel Tower case.

skieur

 

[JAC526]

I wouldn't worry one bit until I actually got a letter from an attorney.

It sounds like a scare tactic to me.

 

[Arkv]

Tell the sender that you will sue him for threatening you x)

 

[unpopular]

skieur - you are totally misreading the "fixed and tangible" part of copyright law. This does not prevent transient art from being copyrightable, but rather things like "ideas".

Under your interpretation an improvised, one time performance is not copyrightable. This is not the case, and a lot of contemporary performance art is, in fact, improvised.

 

[skieur]

skieur - you are totally misreading the "fixed and tangible" part of copyright law. This does not prevent transient art from being copyrightable, but rather things like "ideas".

Under your interpretation an improvised, one time performance is not copyrightable. This is not the case, and a lot of contemporary performance art is, in fact, improvised.

There is NO such thing as transient art. It must be in a "fixed form" to be copyrightable according to the acts of several countries including the US. "Ideas" are not copyrightable either unless they are in written or some other fixed form. One time performance must be in script form, video form, or some other recorded form to be copyrightable and prove/date its existence.

Proof, evidence and documentation are required in law. A copyrightable work does not exist without them.

To put it another way, ideas are NOT copyrightable but their form of concrete, fixed expression IS copyrightable.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

And this is exactly why we have patents.

 

[skieur]

And this is exactly why we have patents.

Yes, but as I pointed out, photography does NOT violate a patent, unless it is accompanied by "passing off" something false for the real thing.

skieur