Re: [Leica] Copyright questions

[Andrew Schroter <schroter@optonline.net>]

By example, I can understand why The GAP wouldn't want their window displays
photographed.  However, we all would be upset if we couldn't photograph the
Victoria's Secret displays, ehh?
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Copyright questions


> Very interesting that you mention this. I've wondered about
> architecture.....and even storefronts.
>
> A few years back I did a few portrait sessions in and around a upscale
> shopping downtown mall. Inside is a huge skylit courtyard and a beautiful
> fountain. It's a great setting with wonderful diffuse natural light. I
> photographed there Saturday morning. Very few people around. The courtyard
> was one of three locations within a two block area. I'd shoot a dozen or
so
> photographs at location. I was in and out of the mall in 10 minutes or
less.
> (IOW, this wasn't anything elaborate, not did it intefere with anything).
>
> One morning a guard came up to me and stopped me from shooting. He claimed
> that all the storefronts -- window displays, etc. -- were protected under
> intellectual property laws. He said it was unlawful for me to photograph
> them even if they were in the background. I thought that was an odd reason
> to stop me. Perhaps he didn't want to say that they don't allow
photographs
> to be taken in the mall. Tourists shoot away there all the time. It's a
> popular spot. I called ahead to get permission the next time. The mall's
> property management people told me no. They didn't gave me a reason.
>
> I've always been curious. Was it because they didn't want any type of
> commercial photography in the mall? I can understand that. Was it an
> intellectual property issue? Perhaps it was both, and then some. What I
find
> interesting is that the guard ignored me the times I used my Leicas. He
> stopped me when I used my Hasselblad.
>
> Dave
>
> >>It is interesting to note that a relatively recent change in U.S.
> copyright law
> _explicitly_ prohibits architects from suing photographers for taking (and
> selling) pictures of their buildings.  In other words, in the U.S., it is
no
> longer possible for an architect to sue a photographer for copyright
> infringement because the photographer takes a picture of a building the
> architect designed without the architect's authorization and then sells
it.
> The
> copyright law now explicitly states that this is _not_ infringement.<<