A Ban on Photography
Aug 16, 2017 11:01:31 #
slo wrote:
I was in a local mall recently and was going to ta... (show quote)
Cell phones are okay - with a relative! I suppose they check documentation Funny! I guess it would be tough to enforce a ban n cell phone photography.
Aug 16, 2017 11:20:35 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
JohnSwanda wrote:
A mall is private property and they have every right to make their own rules, whether they make sense or not. This thread is about photograph on public property.
And maybe that's one of the many reasons that the Mall's are dying.
Aug 16, 2017 11:47:58 #
RRS wrote:
And maybe that's one of the many reasons that the Mall's are dying.
Our mall was poorly managed. They charged high rents, had minimal security, and let teenagers run wild on weekend nights. It has been sold, and it's on the verge of being converted into something else.
Aug 16, 2017 11:49:22 #
Tom Daniels wrote:
I wonder if that includes cell phones??
SIEG HEIL! You don't know what you got 'TILL IT'S GONE!
Aug 16, 2017 12:08:43 #
By law, one gives up the expectation of privacy when in public. It doesn't matter who or what you are, and the language of the law doesn't discriminate. And while performers or celebrities may object to being randomly photographed, even at a free event, they do give up that right to privacy/not being photographed. These no photography rules are just another chip off our block of constitutional rights. Those right don't, however, give us a blanket right to do whatever we wish with the images. I'm all for regulating actual commercial purposes, even at a free concert. The losers, here, are those average people who just want a shot of the performer or celebrity for their own use. If nothing is said or done about this, who knows where else it will extend to, further denying the citizens their rights, until we have no rights.
Aug 16, 2017 13:20:52 #
My perhaps incorrectly stated point was just that, the rules often don't make sense.
Aug 16, 2017 13:36:55 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
jerryc41 wrote:
Our mall was poorly managed. They charged high rents, had minimal security, and let teenagers run wild on weekend nights. It has been sold, and it's on the verge of being converted into something else.
Hi Jerry, remember the old "Teen Centers" dancing Friday and Saturday nights. If they converted the Mall into a teen center the teens of today probably wouldn't bother going.
Aug 16, 2017 14:22:14 #
Wingpilot wrote:
By law, one gives up the expectation of privacy wh... (show quote)
And yet, a contract and the police trump our rights. (No political comment intended by the use of that word.)
Aug 16, 2017 15:39:57 #
jerryc41 wrote:
And yet, a contract and the police trump our rights. (No political comment intended by the use of that word.)
Hitler ran his country without the high tech of the 21st century.
Now thats it high tech. they can do what they want.
Sad, so sad.
Marion
Aug 16, 2017 16:00:30 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
jerryc41 wrote:
And yet, a contract and the police trump our rights. (No political comment intended by the use of that word.)
Hi Jerry, read the DP Review that came out today and you will see that it may well end up in court and the city of LA is going to loose this one as they should!
Aug 16, 2017 17:09:37 #
cessnalvr wrote:
This is going to get me hate remarks but seems all the stupid stuff seems to originate in california. And the rest of the country lets them get away with it
Since this case has not been tried yet, the current policy stands. Even if it goes to court and reaches a Federal appeals court, the verdict they render would only apply to the courts jurisdiction. If it teaches the Supreme Court, then the decision would apply nationwide.
People need to realize the value concert images have in the market place. Also, a ruling in favor of the photographer could result in major bands bypassing free concerts. Then who wins? The public? Photographers? All of the vendors that will have reduced crowds due to a reduction in popular bands playing? Not the band, they will book other concerts where it will be legal to band photos.
Aug 16, 2017 18:01:49 #
thephotoman wrote:
Since this case has not been tried yet, the curren... (show quote)
Thanks, thephotoman.
Aug 16, 2017 18:26:54 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
thephotoman wrote:
Since this case has not been tried yet, the curren... (show quote)
Then let them go. To your logic, if no one now buys their music then who wins? The bands have been fighting to stop music from being stolen on the internet as they should but it seems all too often the rights of others are being eradicated one by one. I'll bet there are plenty of new good bands that would jump at the chance to preform in the park for free without such big heads.
Aug 16, 2017 19:00:48 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
erinjay64 wrote:
Basically, performers own a Copyright on their images...of their faces, instruments, etc. If they do not defend that Copyright-if they let anyone, and everyone photograph them-they lose the copyright. Then, they won't get paid big money to be photographed by pros to endorse: food, candy, beer, clothes, cars, etc.
100% Clueless and 100% wrong!
Aug 16, 2017 20:45:25 #
Its always about money. Old Elvis would be spinning in his grave if he knew they are charging $ just to walk past his grave.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.