Fyi: List Of 50 Properties/objects With Photographic Restrictions

Thank you! Will add that to my list for people asking about it

I can understand the need to protect IP that's been developed by companies and the plethora of man made structures etc., however, I find it surprising that the Lone Cypress tree made it to that list. Interesting times indeed!

yeah that one was sued over a few times. because it's a trademark to someone i think the state.


---Mike Savad

The tree I believe and the trademark, is owned by the company that developed that golf course/developement and has been "off limits" for many,many years.

Nikki,Abbie,

I just emailed the PACA group for a clarification on the difference on "commercial/editorial" usage and our usage, as "ART" and will let you know what the response is, if any.

I had been a past president of ASMP here in Central Florida, years ago and there is a very broad separation from commercial and editorial and I'm confused that PACA lumped them together. ANY image can be used, in editorial, if news. When that image then becomes used for "commercial" stuff,then that changes. Art is the third leg of the image stool and in court and laws, allows artists to create images using anything that is trademarked or copyrighted by individuals or corporations. With that said, some corporations consider that "gray" and if the opportunity is large enough to persue,will,in court.

There have been many cases where folks have,say used the Lone Cypress Tree, as a logo,signage,etc. and found that they need to remove and replace,since they took a piece of art work and converted it to a commercial usage,especially years ago, in California,

Rich

Interesting list.. it puts about 75% of art and photos in the world in violation...

-Peter

i know on zazzle they did a sweep and blindly removed or renamed anything with the mystic name in it. even some fantasy piece i had. they just simply removed them all.


---Mike Savad

I was going to ask that as well Rich.

Many of those items on the this list, may not be an issue at all with regards to appearing on "art prints".

I can see all of those being issues if sold as "commercial use" without permission from the trademark holder. Even the Pixels licensing would be an issue for those trademarked objects/places.

For the heck of it, I checked this list with images on FAA...

Cadillac ranch...numerous images for sale here
Interior of NY stock exchange...at least one
Rolls Royce...plenty of images
Epcot...yes
Disneyland...yes
pictures of Mickey Mouse under a search for Disneyland. But no shots of Mickey Mouse when you search for him (that's good)
Lone Cypress at Pebble beach... at least one
Hollywood sign...lots of those
Mystic Marine Museum...not sure what that is but images come up under that search
Williamsburg and it's re-enactment actors/performers...numerous images
Newport Mansions...check
Coca Cola World...yes
Rock & Roll Hall of Fame...it's there
The Mississippi, Delta Queen and Natchez paddle steamers...the Natchez is for sale
Rockefeller Center...found it
Olympics Athletes, Logo and torch...lots came up under search for Olympics
Hollywood Walk of Stars...plenty
Pro Sports teams and insignias...didn't even bother to search, I am sure these are for sale
Maserati Car...have them
Porche Car...yep
McDonald's Arches...yes
NASCAR...at least 10 pages
Biltmore...no shortage
Beverly Hills Sign...at least a couple
Busch Gardens...a lot of animal shots. Must have the keyword Busch gardens so I assume they were shot there
Sea World...some shots that look like they are from the park. Some seem to be a literal meaning of the world
Universal Studios...yes
Oscar award...he can be found
The British Concord...just found a couple
The Louvre & IM Pei's Pyramid...plenty of both
Indy 500 race...plenty
The Grand Ole Opry...just a few
The TGV (French high-speed train)...found one
Chevrolet logo...at least 10 pages
Mustang Horse logo...quite a few of just the logo
Thunderbird Logo...found some
Barbie doll...found them (and a lot of them aren't portrayed in a pleasant light)
Dartmouth College...yes
San Diego Zoo...yes, but a lot of the images say they are FROM the San Diego Zoo
Eiffel Tower at night...plenty
Japanese Bullet Train...yes



I know a lot of people like to throw the "A" word around as an excuse.(art). But I still believe a "commercial" purpose is ANYTHING done for profit. If you think "art" is an excuse ask yourself this. Would you mind if someone painted a picture directly from one of your pictures? With no credit or reimbursement and listed it for sale on a fine ART site Why would you get upset? They are just making art!

I do understand why it seems "unfair" that all the things on this list are protected. But...they are.

Just because other people do it (if other people jumped off a bridge...) and don't seem to get in trouble doesn't mean it's ok. The companies that own the rights first have to find you and second want to bother with you. Most of the stuff here is "small potatoes" and I am sure their powerful (and expensive) lawyers have more pressing trademark violations to worry about than some guy selling a picture of their work. Some seem more concerned with their trademark (notice the lack of Mickey Mouse images here?) than others. I have heard the Hollywood sign people are quite aggressive with their protection. But even if some don't seem to care...how do we KNOW which ones care and which ones don't?

But I still believe a "commercial" purpose is ANYTHING done for profit

Anyone can believe anything they like, but it does not change FACT.

Commercial use is not the same as "Art Prints".

Commercial use has nothing to do with "for profit" or "not for profit".

That being said, some or all of those items above may be out of bounds for ART as well. I just wanted to make comment on the erroneous description of what "commercial use" is.

mystic seaport... though i do wonder how many on that list will become stock soon... i'm guessing all of them.

commercial use is usually advertising, but it can be used in big box stores as well. it's one word with too many meanings.

---Mike Savad

Where did you get that information Tiny?

So you would have no problem if I painted one of your images (if I could paint) and sell it as art?

I am looking at the copyright site (I assume Trademark may be similar) and I have never seen the word "art" used as an acceptable excuse.

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

Notice this part...

" for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."



How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent

Notice nothing there says it IS ok to use it "for art"


From the copyright office on Fair use...

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.


Notice it says "such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"



It seems to me the "art" excuse is a myth that is thrown around so much it has become fact. Like crime rates going up during a full moon. Just because everyone repeats it, that doesn't automatically make it so and ignorance of the law is no excuse.


http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Another biggie here in California is Hearst Castle, which is disappointing (to me, anyway).

I know a lot of people like to throw the "A" word around as an excuse.(art). But I still believe a "commercial" purpose is ANYTHING done for profit.

John,

I am not arguing with you the fact that "ART" may also be included in those restrictions. Try calming down for a second and actually read my post.

I was disagreeing with your definition of what "commercial use" of an image is, because it is wrong.

"Commercial Use" of an image has nothing to do with "profit" or "not for profit".

I am surprised Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling water is not on list! I toured there twice and upon paying to enter ,one has to agree not to use its images for any commercial use. There was no photography allowed inside the building if caught one has to leave! later, I found some interior photos post on flickr, I email that person and ask how he managed to take photo inside, he told me he took the more extended tour which cost more and was allowed to took photos.

I am surprised Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling water is not on list! I toured there twice and upon paying to enter ,one has to agree not to use its images for any commercial use.

There is that "commercial use" again. An "art print" is not "commercial use" of an image.

For it to be "commercial use", it must be promoting / advertising something. a product, brand, company, idea etc...

Using the Ford Mustang logo to promote your product in flyers, website, signs or in a print advertisement (magazine for eg) would be considered "commercial use".

Selling an "art print" that has the logo on it, is not considered "commercial use".

John if anything done for profit is commercial use then why are news companies exempt from getting releases but still can make a profit? Art is free speech and free speech does not mean give it away for free. And we are not talking about copying. That's not the issue.

Bradford,

I was not sure how to respond to John's example of someone "copying" (painting) one of my photos, being the same as selling a photograph of one of those items in the list as an "art print".

I know the analogy does not work, but was unsure how to word it.

A photographer taking a photograph of a building, is not "copying".

And it is the "use" of the photographic IMAGE that is in question, not the "photographing" of it.

@Rich, I'll be interested in the response you get from PACA. I have lots of automobile pictures as do lots of others here and I was hoping they were ok to sell as art although when someone wanted to use one of my images on a CD cover I thought I should get permission so I contacted GM and they said it was fine to use it. I have read that if the vehicles are over a certain age they may be exempt but this list seems to mean that I shouldn't be selling a lot of my pictures. I can see why people do so many pictures of flowers, animals or abstracts, they seen to be the only safe subjects.

Here is a perfect modern case example of trademarks being used in art. I suggest anyone not clear on how trademarks can be used in art read this account.

http://www.teresascassa.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=118:trademarks-in-artistic-works-freedom-of-expression-or-trademark-infringement?&Itemid=79

Thanks for the link Bradford, it's interesting reading although as with lots of things I've read it still leaves some questions open.

Here is an example of a photograph I have that has sold fairly well locally and it is on the list from the OP. I do not currently offer this through my FAA gallery.

Am I in trouble for selling this image as an "art print"? I don't think so, but am open to being corrected.




-------------

EDIT - From the link in the OP

"PACA does not have a position as to whether the use (either commercially or editorially) is in violation of any applicable laws, but merely advises users to seek advice from their own legal representation to determine if any additional permissions are required under the circumstances."

- Mustang Horse Logo


The only "uses" mentioned are

Commercial
Editorial

On FAA we sell "Art Prints".

The criteria for commercial use are set out quite clearly and if the art is not advertising anything other than itself and is not mass produced then it is not commercial. Very little gray area there. Put your art in a store window as an ad for a product or license 10,000 prints then things get gray.

So if it is not commercial then laws of trademark (but not copyright) are excluded. The reason is that would violate the protections of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. And for most of our art one or both of those apply. Freedom of the press covers all media. Even movies, video games and blogs. You don't have to be a news company to enjoy that freedom. Just an artist or photojournalist and I am both. There are no gray areas for me.

Most companies know this. That's why you see so many trademarks in art for sale here. Because there is nothing wrong with that. In fact by and large they benefit from it. And they know that too.

Some time ago, another POD site (dedicated greeting card site) did a massive sweep and most if not all of what is listed in the OP was included. There's a ton more than what this list suggests but anyway, if the front of a greeting card had the image, the member was told to remove it - no questions asked. If a car could be recognized it had to be removed.

They were tired of being contacted by several company's legal departments so everything had to go. As far as Greeting Card Universe was concerned... all no no images on their product had to be removed. If the member didn't remove it, they did. I believe somewhere on their site is a link for what is not allowed, now.

@Tiny - your Mustang image (because it's a FORD product) would not be allowed on their site.

--Donna Proctor

Edit - And, I've mentioned this before on the threads here... I was threatened by Joseph Campell's attorneys because the foundation owned the copyright on the words - "Follow your bliss." GCU contacted me and sent me the official email they received about one of my images.

Donna, that was because greeting cards are considered a commercial product. Especially if they actually have a greeting on them and are not just folded art prints. That is one reason I would like to see FAA free of all commercial product.

If "Follow your Bliss" is copyrighted that is not the same as a trademark.

@ Bradford - thanks for that - yes, it is a commercial product - we were allowed to place a greeting on the front and inside. Although, some just sold them as art greeting cards/no greetings. I agree re's seeing FAA free of all commercial products. It really could get ugly...

Here is another list I found:

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

One thing I have see on the 'sold' page that greets me when is art where a the logo for a sports team like football has been reworked into another piece of art with a texture behind it. I don't know if that is allowed. Also, someone sold a photo of the Stanley Cup, which is a copyrighted item. This whole issue of copyright is not very clear. I can' afford a lawyer that I can have on retainer to consult. Anyone else having this problem? I don't want legal problems.

Dartmouth College, jeez they own 75% of the town of Hanover. Not sure if I'm trespassing or not when I walk down the street.

BTW - I sold a stock photo taken on the campus today. It was editorial RF.

Here is a presentation with Len Speier, photographer and lawyer, which might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqDCIqOCDdM&index=144&list=PLA2A7966A44E77011

I got a threatening letter from the "Life is Good" lawyers once.

We were selling a t-shirt that had nothing to do with their look or slogans - except we had in the description something like "Now in moss green - life is good!" We changed the description and tossed the letter in the trash. Some companies have lawyers on retainer looking for anything that smells of infringement.

Donna, that was because greeting cards are considered a commercial product. Especially if they actually have a greeting on them and are not just folded art prints.

Bradford,

I never thought about the "greeting cards" on FAA that way before. Would the ones sold here fall more under "folded art print" because they are sold blank? Is there even such a distinction between "greeting card" and "folded art print"?

This is good timing for me because I am looking at adding cards to my local offering. If I sold them blank, could they be considered "folded art prints"? Maybe if I advertised them as "Blank Folded Art Prints" and not greeting cards.

Either that, or I just stay away from that kind of image when offering cards. (probably the easiest thing to do)

EDIT - maybe FAA should be marketing them as "Folded Art Prints"? LOL

EDIT - maybe FAA should be marketing them as "Folded Art Prints"? LOL

Maybe it should since they're called "greeting cards" and have the FAA logo on them. No different that what happens on GCU when artists simply make "folded art prints" ;)

What Philip said... I totally agree.

I think it is fair because they are not talking about your art photography or paintings, etc. They are rightly concerned with people who use their stuff without permission in advertising media, commercial media, or product sales and design. The film production companies have legal firms like "Greenlight" where one must seek approval for art work related to one of their companies. They have told me in writing that any original art is acceptable however.


Personally I have always felt that artists including photographers and film makers as well as commercial interests should compensate somehow if they have profited by the free use of wildlife and indigenous peoples like Indians in the Andes for example in their work. With wildlife perhaps support the World Wildlife Fund as an example.

"I am not arguing with you the fact that "ART" may also be included in those restrictions. Try calming down for a second and actually read my post.
I was disagreeing with your definition of what "commercial use" of an image is, because it is wrong.
"Commercial Use" of an image has nothing to do with "profit" or "not for profit". "

Again Tiny I ask WHERE did you get that information? I have heard it before. Plenty of times. But WHERE is it? It doesn't seem to be covered under "fair use", so where is it written the word "art" is like a force field from copyright law?


I still didn't see where you would be ok with me painting one of your photographs in the name of art.

"John if anything done for profit is commercial use then why are news companies exempt from getting releases but still can make a profit?"

Bradford, it is covered under "fair use". From the copyright office. But what did you mean by "make a profit".

From the copyright website...
"Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports"

Tiny,

Re: your Mustang shot (great shot by the way). I would say that is in violation. Want to know for sure? Contact Ford and ask them if it is ok because it is art.

Like I said before, they are probably not going to spend much effort tracking down one guy selling a print here and there. That image sure wouldn't HURT their brand in any way (it is not derogatory to the brand).

But the car and that logo is THEIR property (contrary to what Philip might believe). They paid to develop the car and the logo. They paid to make it well known. Why shouldn't Ford be able to control who makes money off the logo?

How a company handles a violation is up to them. I recently read that "Game of Thrones" is the most pirated show in TV history...and HBO doesn't care. They have come out and said so. their thinking is people pirate it because they can't afford premium cable. Their logic is that if these people end up in a situation where they CAN afford HBO, they will buy it because they have seen how good their shows are. Someone could probably come up with a list of 50 corporations that freely allow the use of their trademarks and copyrights.

It REALLY just comes down to taking risk and hoping you aren't caught in the sea of violations in the world (especially today's world).

John, Thank you for the feedback on the Mustang shot.

What you are referring to as someone "copying" my photographs by painting them, is not the same as me taking a photo of the front end of the Ford. I am not "copying" the design of the car or the logo. I am documenting it in a photograph and selling it as an "art print". If I started to manufacture a vehicle of my own and used the Ford design and logo, that would be "copying".

There is a difference between "copyright" (which my photo would fall under) and "trademark" (which the Ford falls under) EDIT - The Ford design and logo may also fall under "copyright", but by taking a photo I am not "copying".

If I was to take that image and use it to promote a product or use it in an advertisement of some sort, that would be "commercial use".

I will let those who have been doing this much longer than me answer those questions further John.

But HOW do you know what is commercial Tiny? Is it "something you heard" or is it something you read in an official document.

I think many people look at it in the literal sense. Like a "commercial" on TV. The link from the U.S. copyright office just stated profit or not-for-profit.

"The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"



So, if I took a picture of your picture you wouldn't have a problem with that?

A picture of my picture would be a direct copy of my image, where many different photographers could take many different angles of the front end of the same car and copyright their own version. It would be impossible for another photographer (even if shooting the exact same car and not just the same make) to get the exact same end results.

Yes, but the link from the US Copyright Office is dealing directly with "copyright". If a photographer registers an image (like if I did with my Ford shot), it now becomes "copyright" protected whether it is used for profit or not for profit.

John,

That link from the US Copyright Office is dealing directly with reproducing, (copying) or changes to copyrighted "works".

It is not dealing with "Trademarks"

Here is the first paragraph from the link in the OP.

As a service, PACA members have compiled a list of properties and objects that may cause problems if shown photographically. Some of the properties and objects are alleged to be covered by trademark


Apples to Oranges

Nikki, just FYI, the list is apparently from 2004 (the date on the bottom of the web page). It's a good list to have though - thank you for posting it.

If anyone finds a more recent list, would you please post the link in this thread?!

John this may help explain what Tiny is saying:
http://www.photoattorney.com/editorial-use-of-persons-photograph-is-confirmed/

BTW, on the advice of his lawyer, Mr. Nussenzweig later dropped the appeal.

Interestingly enough, the photo in question was reproduced in a coffee table book, which can be defined as commercial use. But in this case the judge viewed it as art, as it should be.

Presumably this applies to trademarked buildings, etc. also. However, because each case of trademark infringement is unique, and corporate lawyers get paid to sue people, no law can/will prevent them from bringing civil action should they feel they can get away with it. One has to ask themselves, if you get sued for use of a trademark, can you handle it? That's an individual decision.

One has to ask themselves, if you get sued for use of a trademark, can you handle it? That's an individual decision.

Thank you Chuck. Great link.

There is a big difference between what one might get "sued" over and whether or not a "law" has ever been broken.

Thankfully here in Canada, the loser pays both sides of the legal bills, so frivolous "civil" suits are few and far between.

A large corporation on the other hand, (with more money than brains) may decide to sue a photographer just to make a point. If the photographer can't afford to defend themselves, then yes they may find themselves on the "losing" end of the stick. Not because they broke the law, but because they could not afford to defend themselves.

For looking for definitive definitions concerning copyright and trademark usage.... There are none. And of course that is on purpose. The "interpretation" of copyright and trademark laws and violations are left up to judges. To loosely define terms in law allows for "judgment" in those "grey areas" that come up, which is the end is a good thing.

So please stop asking where does it say specifically... such and such.. it won't.

As in relation to the original post... the information the link is not that definitive. In one instance it says.... •Interiors of New York Stock Exchange (OK from street),

then further down the list it says.... •Exterior of NY Stock Exchange
(we have heard the exterior is now problematic)

So these are mostly just opinions not necessarily factual.

bob

John you are talking about copyright when most of the conversation has been about trademarks. There is difference between taking a photo of the NYSE and copying someone else's. You won't find the word art in the laws much because it is too broad a term. It really gets down to case law. I linked one above. And yes there is a legal definition of commercial. There are actually a lot but there is a specific definition as applies to trademarks and Freedom of Speech I don't just make this up but I did mention 2 of the four criteria. The relevant law for trademarks is the Lanham Act. But there are rulings that make things more clear. At issue is trademark vs Freedom of Speech. Courts usually rule that trademarks should not impede the later. The exception is partially for commercial use. But art is not commercial use because it does not meet that criteria:

This is from the Wikipedia article on Freedom of Speech
Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia:[114]
The contents do "no more than propose a commercial transaction."
The contents may be characterized as advertisements.
The contents reference a specific product.
The disseminator is economically motivated to distribute the speech.
Alone, each indicium does not compel the conclusion that an instance of speech is commercial; however, "[t]he combination of all these characteristics...provides strong support for...the conclusion that the [speech is] properly characterized as commercial speech."[115]

Courts have ruled that art is not advertising if the only thing being sold is the art itself. That eliminates the first two criteria. And that is where the "art" comes in. Really trademark is an exception to free speech. Art is not an exception to trademark. Visual communication is as important as verbal.

Bob is correct, the laws are purposefully vague, and new technology (such as the internet) adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.

Attorney Harvey Silverglate wrote a book called "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Thanks Philip... yea I was speaking mostly about the definitions of usage. But as you said the trademark and copyright are "pretty straight forward" 'O)

making innocent activity potentially criminal

copyright infringement is not "innocent" activity.

EDIT - (seeing as how this thread is about "copyright" and "trademark" infringement, I can only assume this is what you are referring Dan, in the above post with regards to "innocent" activity. Unless of course you are bringing in something to the thread that has nothing to do with the topic?

The laws concerning "copyright" are very straightforward, whether online or not.

"copyright infringement is not "innocent" activity. "

Tiny, if one makes a beautiful photograph of the Hollywood sign and sells art prints of same, with no knowledge that permission is/was/might be required, that's innocent activity.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Shoot - IF they could collect for each image I've seen of "the lone cypress" - someone would be very rich. I had, my brother now has, a oil painting of the lone cypress. I've seen photographs of it on here. https://www.google.com/search?q=lone+cypress&client=firefox&hs=lv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&channel=np&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9pI8U7a1PKamsQS08YCQDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1104&bih=610

as for car logo's - hmmm - there also a "car load" of those on FAA: car logo's and cars

It is "innocent" activity Dan, because no law has been broken by selling that image as an "art print" and not because of anything to do with "new technology" and/or the "complexity of the internet".

Your vagueness is a bore.

Roy.. so do the million tourists that take a photo of that tree every year. They just can't use it to sell beer.

Ignorance is no defense of breaking the law

@Tiny.... Shhhhhhhhhh dont accuse people of being a bore.... insulting

.

Abbie. I did not say that Dan was a bore, merely the vagueness of the comments :) (but I will be more careful)

"Ignorance is no defense of breaking the law"

An oft-repeated phrase that is an absolute myth. A few years back it was discovered that IRS help center employees gave correct answers to just 57% of tax law questions asked by Treasury Department investigators posing as taxpayers. If government employees paid to know the law don't know the law, how can we be expected to?

With the proliferation of new laws, no citizen can reasonably be expected to know all of the statutes that may apply. It may be that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but for virtually 100% of the population, ignorance is the reality.

Fortunately, under most statutes, to win a conviction, prosecutors must prove that the defendant acted “knowingly.”

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I agree with Dan 100% on this point! If you stumble into a secret Cobra Cult society in the middle of India and take pictures and then get killed it is a just reward! Their law was for no one to know about their cult outside of their members. Remember the Kong Kong film?

People are all ignorant of something somewhere most of the time and the laws are so varied and territorial specific that no one can go along everywhere without offending the law somewhere!.

Fortunately, under most statutes, to win a conviction, prosecutors must prove that the defendant acted “knowingly.”

Funny you bring that up Dan with regards to "knowingly" breaking the law where there is no claim to "ignorance" and/or "innocent use", as this is soon to be the topic of my next thread.

See you there. :)


Here it is - http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1824779

The phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" came about when criminal law focused on less than a dozen crimes that are wrong in their essence, like armed robbery, rape or murder. But the phrase does not work well for crimes that are not inherently wrong, but are only “wrong” because of an arbitrary statutory definition.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Sorry to post and run this morning; glad the conversation kept going.

@John - You asked for a source/definition of commercial use vs heresay. Tiny is right; commercial use has nothing to do with "for profit" or not. Here is my earlier research on the subject, with a supporting link:

Commercial use actually has nothing to do with money or profit; that is a common misconception. It has to do with whether the person in the photo can be seen as supporting or advocating a particular idea, product or service. Selling art photos does NOT make it commercial use. (From my understanding, using a photo to sell a product such as a t-shirt or coffee cup would be commercial use.) I suggest reading the following article which covers when model releases and property releases are needed by photographers and when they aren't.

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

It's a long article (actually a chapter of a book for digital photographers) and well worth the read. Or, you can skip down to the section "8.5 Art, Books, Exhibitions, Presentations, Etc.". Quote:

"Art exhibits—and indeed, the sales of photos as artwork—are exempt from requiring a release from subjects that happen to be portrayed. Courts have decided repeatedly on this matter, including those situations where other potential conflicts may be intertwined." (followed by a link to a court case to back up this statement)

And here is a link directly to the Property Releases section and the When a Release is needed section.

Click on the links in the side menu to see other chapters, too. It is an excellent read.