Re: Photography at Art Fair - Legal/Moral question
nolaguy wrote: dcains wrote:
In \'05 we were on vacation in northern California. A local resident walking by told me I was not allowed to photograph this tree, as it had been copyrighted by the community. Oops . . .
Don\'t quote me on this but one loose guideline used in determining copyright infringement (as opposed to \"inspiration\") is whether or not the work in question is 30% or greater different from the original work.
That said, hack a few branches off the tree, file for a copyright as your own original work and shoot away.
I\'m not sure that would work here, at least like you mean it, because this is a unique, singular place. If it is legally defensible that they can trademark the very image of this tree (which I personally doubt), then any image would probably infringe. Also, I think that is a guide
It sounds like there may be some confusion of terms though - it seems like the actual argument made for CypressGate might have been that the land surrounding the tree (at least the classic vista shown) is private property and the owners are explicitly disallowing photographs while on their property. That isn\'t trademark or copyright, and while I know nothing at all about the law around rights of landowners to restrict things like that on their own property, I\'d say they might be able to do that, especially if you have to sign an agreement of some kind before entering. So what people are being told and what is being claimed might be different...
I dunno - I\'d take the position that taking a photograph is a protected form of expression. If my daughter drew an image of that tree, is it infringing if the law says it is trademarked?
Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Previous versions of M635_Guy's message #10901513 « Photography at Art Fair - Legal/Moral question »
