fotodon wrote:
You are correct about dispensing legal advice. But, as a lawyer you should know that you do not need any kind of license to voice an opinion in this country. Forums like UHH are built on that Constitutional right. I may not agree with what another poster might say but I respect their right to say it. In my previous post I did not and would not suggest that any poster be censured for possibly expressing an opinion of what they thought was a correct answer. Even if I felt the answer was not quite correct.
Now, back to the point of this thread. Copyright and property right laws are an integral part of photography. Less so for hobbyist, more so for pros. Once the realm of pro photography only, the digital age has pushed this to the forefront. This is proven out by the frequency such questions on this forum. Using a camera without knowing some basic copyright and property right laws is like driving down the road and not knowing what different sign posts mean. You don't wait until you see a red sign with a black border and a black slash through it to call a cop and ask what it means.
I did not say that photographers should not utilize the expertise of lawyers. Indeed, I suggested that more photographers should study up on laws using publications written by lawyers specializing in that field. These laws are similar world wide and protect people on both sides of the camera. Having said that I retract my comment "lessor for hobbyist". Hobbyist are being ripped off by the millions on a daily basis when they post online. This is mostly harmless to the individual but is building a culture that condones copyright infringement and promotes privacy invasion. Please excuse my rant. I only mean to stimulate self improvement.
You are correct about dispensing legal advice. Bu... (
show quote)
Fotodon, the original "point of this thread arose from the question posed by the OP, "If a take a picture of a public monument such as the Washington Monument and add some text or other items and sell the pictures am I doing something illegal. On the same subject, if a building such as a church that is private property is used that way is there a difference?"
The OP here is asking whether or not an action he/she is contemplating would cause he/she to violate the law. Its pretty straight forward. It is one thing to express one's personal views in a hypothetical sense, and it is quite another to tell the OP is his/her actions, in that scenario, would break a law. The answer to the OP's question is not a matter of personal opinion, it IS a matter of legal fact. I hold inviolate a person's right to freedom of speech and with that one's right to freely express one's personal opinion on anything. I have defended that right for people in the past and in that regard I absolutely agree with you. I am not sure where you got the impression that I somehow intended to "censure" anyone.
However, you know, to use your analogy, that just because you (in the editorial sense) can drive your car down the street, you don't have that right to do so unless you hold a what?....A Driver's license! [technically it is a privilege and not a right to hold a driver's license, but I digress] So too, to render a direct answer to this OP's question, as posed, requires, in the jurisdiction of the State of Connecticut anyway, a law license (among other things.) The answer requires a precise knowledge of the laws as they pertain to the OP's stated fact pattern, and NOT an opinion. I really don't want to get into a discussion of legal doctrine here as it would serve no purpose.
Please do not take umbrage as I certainly also agree with you that copyright law imposes, more and more, constraints and influences photographers of every ilk (pro and hobbyist alike) Privacy rights pose a completely separate set of legal issues and have nothing to do with intellectual property laws.
I am not saying we shouldn't discuss the topic, and if I gave that impression, it certainly wasn't intended. I am only offering a cautionary suggestion that we (myself included) should be very careful that we make no emphatic statements as to what the law in any given jurisdiction is with regard to any particular fact pattern, as posed by the OP here. I am not saying we shouldn't discuss our opinions of the law, whether they are fair or not, or what we think those laws should look like. I am just cautioning against directly answering questions like that posed by the OP in the posting. I am not suggesting that anyone is or was intending to break the law (practicing law without a license) but ignorance of the law, as you have probably heard, offers no excuse. So, do as you wish ...Perge cum cautela!