LA Zoo over the top?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Doc Johnson on 26 Feb 2010 05:10 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:42:34 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >J. Clarke wrote: >> On 2/25/2010 10:50 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: >>> "Bruce"<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:vgtco5p1pt7hh9llmt3aef80jd983ni9gh(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:30:19 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>>>> "Bruce"<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:pgbbo5tnkvtojop6k439c2k4omof91oecf(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:14 -0500, "Charles" >>>>>> <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34625084 >>>>>> >>>>>> The zoo is perfectly entitled to ask for the images not to be made >>>>>> printable. The rights to images taken on private land rest with the >>>>>> landowner unless the landowner expressly grants image rights to a >>>>>> photographer. >>>>>> >>>>>> A visitor to the zoo will not have had those rights granted to them. >>>>>> However, they will normally be entitled to make images for their own >>>>>> personal use. >>>>> >>>>> The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by >>>>> the >>>>> taxpayers. >>>> >>>> >>>> That doesn't mean that members of the public are granted unlimited >>>> rights to sell prints of images that they take at the Zoo. >>>> >>>> Photography *for personal use* is fine, but the definition of personal >>>> use does not extend to selling prints. >>> >>> I don't see why selling photos of animals taken at a public zoo can be >>> restricted by the zoo. It's not as if the photog needs a model >>> release from >>> the animal :) Really, it's a public, tax-payer funded zoo. The zoo >>> cannot >>> restrict selling of prints, IMO. They may say they can, they ma say >>> photos >>> are for personal use only, but that doesn't mean they have a legal >>> right to >>> do so. I doubt they do. >> >> Does anybody know of relevant case law on this? Or any specific state >> or local statute? > >In the UK yes. The landowner gets to make the rules about what you can >and cannot do when stood on their land. Including take photographs or >subsequent use of those photographs through image rights. I expect the >same landowner laws or an equivalent exist in the USA. > >The last time I can recall one actually going to court was in the late >1970's Refuge Assurance vs King's College, Cambridge. The disputed photo >was of a punt on the river with the college in the background, and >provably taken from private land. The college won. >> >> The fact that they scream and shout doesn't mean that they actually have >> a legal leg to stand on. But the fact that others here scream and shout >> "I've got a right" doesn't mean that they do either. > >It is extremely Commie of these hardcore Libertarians to want to trample >over the landowners rights. >> >> Personally my reaction would be "So sue me." > >Usually stopping taking any more photos when challenged is good enough. >Provoking an unnecessary confrontation wastes time. > >Regards, >Martin Brown Just like the "Boston Tea Party" confrontation wasted everyone's time? It always surprises me that the English have never grasped the fact that everyone is always trying to flee that little island. They don't grasp hints too well, do they. At least they'll never have a problem with immigration.
From: D.J. on 26 Feb 2010 05:12 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:57:39 +0000, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >D.J. wrote: >> There is not ONE single law in the whole world that can be enforced on any >> human if they don't want it to be. > >I thing you under estimate the power (in many senses) of governments. > >I don't WANT to pay tax. But I do. Consider this a >disproof by counter example of your assertion. > > BugBear Conversely, I don't WANT to pay taxes, so I DON'T. Legally, with no repercussions for 30 years now. There are ways if you are smart enough.
From: N on 26 Feb 2010 05:52 "Doc Johnson" <nospamforme(a)anyaddress.com> wrote in message news:797fo55cjr625i63jf4naebqioko51f98v(a)4ax.com... > > It always surprises me that the English have never grasped the fact that > everyone is always trying to flee that little island. They don't grasp > hints too well, do they. At least they'll never have a problem with > immigration. > Where have you been for the last 20 years, under a rock?
From: Martin Brown on 26 Feb 2010 06:31 N wrote: > > "Doc Johnson" <nospamforme(a)anyaddress.com> wrote in message > news:797fo55cjr625i63jf4naebqioko51f98v(a)4ax.com... >> >> It always surprises me that the English have never grasped the fact that >> everyone is always trying to flee that little island. They don't grasp >> hints too well, do they. At least they'll never have a problem with >> immigration. >> > > Where have you been for the last 20 years, under a rock? Trolls usually reside under bridges. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Chris Malcolm on 26 Feb 2010 06:45
Doc Johnson <nospamforme(a)anyaddress.com> wrote: > It always surprises me that the English have never grasped the fact that > everyone is always trying to flee that little island. They don't grasp > hints too well, do they. At least they'll never have a problem with > immigration. What makes you think that the current serious problems they've been having with immigration for decades, a lot more than most other European countries, are going to go away? Or are you just making this stuff up? -- Chris Malcolm |