Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

"Vince" <vpilutis@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:486920B5.2000209@optonline.net...
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:E7w3Y9E9KIaIFA41@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>>Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at night...
>>>and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square, London. Both
>>>restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Eiffel Tower CAN be photographed but such images may not be
>> used commercially unless licensed. Stephane Dieu the head of the
>> company that owns the copyright stated '"It is really just a way to
>> manage
>> commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't
>> approve."
>>
>
> Yawn! They would have to have about 100 of more people who's only job
> would be to look online and in magazines and newspapers so called
> "un-licensed" photos and besides how could they enforce it in other
> nations?
>

Copyright laws are enforceable internationally under the terms of the Berne
Convention and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty

I doubt that Joe Blogg's Deli is at much risk but any multinational
would likely find a writ arriving.

Keith

On Jun 30, 2:39 pm, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Vince" <vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:486920B5.2000209@optonline.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> >>news:E7w3Y9E9KIaIFA41@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> >>>Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at night....
> >>>and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square, London. Both
> >>>restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
>
> >> The Eiffel Tower CAN be photographed but such images may not be
> >> used commercially unless licensed. Stephane Dieu the head of the
> >> company that owns the copyright stated '"It is really just a way to
> >> manage
> >> commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't
> >> approve."
>
> > Yawn! They would have to have about 100 of more people who's only job
> > would be to look online and in magazines and newspapers so called
> > "un-licensed" photos and besides how could they enforce it in other
> > nations?
>
> Copyright laws are enforceable internationally under the terms of the Berne
> Convention and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty
>
> I doubt that Joe Blogg's Deli is at much risk but any multinational
> would likely find a writ arriving.
>
> Keith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
________________
This is ridiculous. Lou Dobbs should see this thread. He'd laugh so
hard he'd end up on a FU#*$ng CATHETER!!!

Pretty soon, we'll all be limited to taking pictures only within the
confines of our own homes - not even our yards - and you'd better make
sure you turn off that TV in the background behind your grandson
holding the cat!

-CC

In message <48692B61.1010703@optonline.net>, Vince
<vpilutis@optonline.net> writes
>
>
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "Vince" <vpilutis@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:486920B5.2000209@optonline.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:E7w3Y9E9KIaIFA41@phaedsys.demon.co.uk.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Apparently the Eiffel Tower, Paris, *IS* copyrighted but only at
>>>>>night... and it is prohibited to take pictures in Trafalgar Square,
>>>>>London. Both restrictions generally ignored AFAIK as I have done both.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Eiffel Tower CAN be photographed but such images may not be
>>>>used commercially unless licensed. Stephane Dieu the head of the
>>>>company that owns the copyright stated '"It is really just a way to
>>>>manage
>>>>commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't
>>>>approve."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yawn! They would have to have about 100 of more people who's only job
>>>would be to look online and in magazines and newspapers so called
>>>"un-licensed" photos and besides how could they enforce it in other
>>>nations?
>>>
>> Copyright laws are enforceable internationally under the terms of
>>the Berne
>> Convention and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty
>> I doubt that Joe Blogg's Deli is at much risk but any multinational
>> would likely find a writ arriving.
>> Keith
>>
>
>I forgot about that one.
>In any case I still say how would they know?

They use an agency that does this sort of thing. Very common.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

> I'm having a bit of trouble imagining
> a tethered balloon being of much use in a
> battlefield situation.

It would be like an observation tower. Even if the balloon was safely
tethered behind friendly lines, you'd still get a much better view of
the enemy.

But although photography from a balloon was -possible- at the time of
the U.S. Civil War I don't think it was actually done by the military.
And if you had a tethered balloon it would have been much faster
simply to have a balloonist shout out the info to his friends below,
or just drop a written note to the ground.

James

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:53:23 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
<joekor@**************> wrote:

>The bridges and tunnels between NY City and New Jersey are run by the
>Port Authority and have restrictions, but then again the WTC was a PA
>facility.

Two of my favorite photos are of the WTC from the Statue of Liberty
Ferry and the Brooklyn Bridge from the observation deck of the WTC.
They were taken in January 1983 when we were in NYC for my father's
funeral and the temperature was 8 degrees above zero Fahrenheit.
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:43:57 -0700 (PDT), JamesStep
<JamesStep@**********> wrote:

>True, but I think the larger point of that famous example is that free
>speech isn't absolute; that there are certain types of speech that can
>get you in legal hot water (defamation, lying under oath, making
>threats, etc.).

The point was and is that rights enumerated or protected by the US
and State Constitutions are subject to reasonable time, place, and
manner restrictions. Constitutional Law 101. The big fights are
over what's "reasonable".
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:52:17 -0400, Vince <vpilutis@optonline.net>
wrote:

>I forgot about that one.
>In any case I still say how would they know?

The question is not "how would they know" but "what are you going to
say when they do know". Ignorance is no excuse.
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 08:02:13 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>Also, conlaw 101, the First Amendment restricts the powers of
>government, it does not prevent private entities from setting their
>own rules for what may and may not be done on their property, nor does
>it prevent them from enforcing those rules.

We ran into that in a slightly different form in one of the two radio
antenna cases that I have lost in my career. In a case involving
enforcement of a Restrictive Covenant against construction of radio
antennas at one's residence, we claimed that a state court enforcing a
civil contract term such as that constitutes "state action" which for
this purpose was preempted by Federal law. We relied on the famous
case of _Shelley v Kraemer_ which banned racial discriminatory
covenants in real estate contracts.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying in essence that our case didn't
have the pizzazz of the Shelley case!

You win some, you lose some...
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 08:28:26 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>Uh, I think you need some perspective. Suppose they do stop you, then
>what? What's the worst that the MTA cops have _ever_ done to a
>photographer? Is that so horrible for you that you aren't willing to
>risk the small chance that it is going to happen?

Is such a confrontation something that you are looking forward to?

I don't know about you, but I prefer to be before a judge as an
attorney or government agent or expert witness, not as a defendant,
even on petty stuff like this (and I do believe that it's petty).

An attorney's job is to advise the client how not to have to appear
before the judge. A lot easier than trying to get him or her "off".
At least that's how I practice law.
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

On Jul 7, 12:12 am, Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 08:28:26 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>
> <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Uh, I think you need some perspective.  Suppose they do stop you, then
> >what?  What's the worst that the MTA cops have _ever_ done to a
> >photographer?  Is that so horrible for you that you aren't willing to
> >risk the small chance that it is going to happen?
>
> Is such a confrontation something that you are looking forward to?
>
> I don't know about you, but I prefer to be before a judge as an
> attorney or government agent or expert witness, not as a defendant,
> even on petty stuff like this (and I do believe that it's petty).
>
> An attorney's job is to advise the client how not to have to appear
> before the judge.  A lot easier than trying to get him or her "off".
> At least that's how I practice law.

So you advise a not-guilty client to plead to a lesser charge?