23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Now, if the photographer was using the logo to make a profit, different story. But both the jet and the locomotive are easily seen from public places, and their owners know that, which is why they put the logo there in the first place. Sounds like a slow day at the corporation’s law office... Ed
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't mean to correct anyone, I just don't want anyone to think (1) they can't take pictures of trains or (2) they can go to an NFL game, tape the game and sell the tape en masse. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by penncentral1968 QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't mean to correct anyone, I just don't want anyone to think (1) they can't take pictures of trains or (2) they can go to an NFL game, tape the game and sell the tape en masse. Gabe But if I were somehow able to position myself on public property outside the stadium and film the NFL game and sell the film to NBC, really how is that any different than taking a picture of a train from a public road and selling it to TRAINS?
Pump
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
QUOTE: New Jersey Transit has required a permit to photograph its vehicles and its facilities from public property or its stations or parking lots, and this originated much earlier as an intellectual property issue; I suspect they didn't want everybody photographing their logo and using it for commercial purposes.
QUOTE: If I am correct, and with few exceptions, once anybody or anything is in full view out in the public they lose all rights to privacy.
QUOTE: Trains isn't using the photo as their own work and is free publicity for the railroad.
QUOTE: Originally posted by penncentral1968 A photographer took a picture of a business jet from public property and uploaded it to the web site. A few days later he was contacted by the law firm of the company owning the jet demanding that the photo be removed and the original destroyed as the logo on the jet is a copyrighted work - the claim is that the photographer is infringing on the copyright by photographing the logo and publishing it for public consumption.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68 Consider, too, that one reason that so many lawsuits are settled instead of going to trial is that the whole process is expensive. Corporation, Inc can afford to file the suit. Mr Little Guy Photographer probably doesn't have a few thousand floating around to hire a lawyer. Hopefully (from Corp, Inc's point of view) Mr LGP will look at that and back down. After all, even if LGP wins the lawsuit, he's still got a pretty big bill to pay. Could be that Corp, Inc didn't want anyone to know they'd been in town - maybe some sensitive dealings going on or something, and having a competitor see the jet, and the date, might influence things badly. Then, again, that's why cops use unmarked cars....
QUOTE: Originally posted by penncentral1968 I enjoy taking railroad-related pictures, and have submitted a few to TRAINS over the years (unfortunately none have made the cut, but that's a different issue!). I also upload a fair number of shots to Internet sites such as Railpictures.net. I'm even more prolific in taking pictures of commerical airplanes, and have nearly 600 shots on one of the most popular airliner photo web sites. That web site has recently been faced with an interesting issue that could have ramifications for rail publications. A photographer took a picture of a business jet from public property and uploaded it to the web site. A few days later he was contacted by the law firm of the company owning the jet demanding that the photo be removed and the original destroyed as the logo on the jet is a copyrighted work - the claim is that the photographer is infringing on the copyright by photographing the logo and publishing it for public consumption.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 As a tangent to this topic - how about photographing museum collections? I recently visited the B&O Museum in Baltimore. There was a sign posted near the entry way, that basically stated that I could take photos for my own private use, but I could not publish anything (including sending jpeg files) without express permission from museum management.
QUOTE: Originally posted by DPD1 My guess is that they're using the logo issue as an excuse to get the photo off the site for security issues. Wealthy individuals and the companies they run/own, have many people sitting around who's job is to protect them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.