bert_krages1

For starters go the <A HREF="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/">U.S. Copyright Office circulars page</A> and download circular 9 which covers work for hire. In the context in which you are shooting, work-for-hire requires a written agreement prior to the creation of the images. Read the other materials regarding basic copyright as well. If you are going into this line of business, copyright is critical and you need to understand it. You also need to be registering your images with the U.S. Copyright Office if you want to have effective (i.e., beyond technical) copyright protection. I have some information on registering works at <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/copy1.htm">this page</A> but there is good information on the U.S. Copyright Office website as well.

If you agreed that he could use the image, it is not copyright infringement. What you have is a breach of contract. Technically you could rescind the contract and then sue for copyright infringement but you would likely be better offing sueing for the fee in small claims court.

Remove the hex screw at the base and disassemble the head. Wipe any excess grease and clean out any dirt. It should operate smoothly when reassembled.

The prosecution of cheerleading offenses will no doubt be hampered by the fact that it would likely be unlawful to photograph overtly sexually suggestive cheerleading.

<p>This is a horribly worded law that does not even require that the photograph be taken secretly or in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The part regarding taking photographs is shown below.

 

<p>Section 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. <br>

(a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.<br>

(b) A person commits an offense if the person: <br>

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means visually records another:<br>

(A) without the other person's consent; and <br>

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; <br>

 

<p>In theory, depending on how this vague statute is interpreted, taking the photograph of an attractive person in public without their permission could suffice. This kind of law is constitutionally suspect as applied to routine kinds of photography and I am amazed that any legislature would have enacted a statute that is so shoddily drafted.

Another thought. Both images appear to have been taken from eye level or extended-tripod height. Camera height can have a big effect on composition. Images taken from higher or lower than eye level often look more interesting.

<p>I don't think the images above are a good representation of Frielander's work. Most of the published work of his that I have seen fits within the street photography genre and is very competent. In my opinion, his photographs tend to be on the edgy side (in the vein of Robert Frank but with a sort of quirky balance). He also has a group of photographs that portray spindly looking trees in urban and suburban settings. These images are more of an acquired taste, but are intellectually interesting compositions if you view them as compositions of linear elements.

<p> No photographer can produce work that is going to appeal to every one. Some photographers deal with this by trying to produce work that is always conventional. In extreme cases, they won't make or keep images that run against the rules of compositions (e.g., rule of thirds, rule against mergers). Some photographers don?t feel the need to seek universal acclaim and produce work that is more vulnerable to criticism. As an educator, Lee Frielander has been experimental from a positive perspective and warrants respect for his work in this area.

The Arca Swiss plates are much larger. I don't know whether Manfrotto still sells the plates for the 108. However, I saw some for sale at Pro Photo Supply (http://www.prophotosupply.com) in Portland, OR a while back and you might try contacting them. By the way, this is a rock steady ball head that doesn't get the respect it deserves.

Commercial use is essentially synonymous with advertising use. The cover of a periodical is not considered to be advertising.

Yes.

Ditto on consulting a lawyer. Disclaimers are effective in some circumstances and not in others.

Actually, it appears that Nestle had a model release, they just didn't pay him for the use. The really fortunate thing for the model, since he doesn't drink instant coffee, is that he doesn't make bloody mary's from scratch. The big question in my mind is whether Nestle paid the photographer according to his contract.

Unless the photograph is used in an advertisement, I don't think there is any risk.

Maybe they took his picture.

A photograph is a work for hire only if (1) made by an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment for an employer or (2) specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work. For example, the copyrights to photographs taken by a photographer who is the employee of a newspaper would belong to the newspaper whereas the copyrights to photographs published by the newspaper but taken by a freelancer would belong to the freelancer. For a work used as part of a collective work to be considered a work for hire, it must be specially created for that purpose. If a high school hired a photographer to take student photos for the yearbook, and the contract specifically stated that the photographs would be works for hire, then the school would own the copyrights. Otherwise, the copyright would belong to the photographer. The photographer does not need a writing to say that he retains the copyright. In the collective work scenario, the other party does need a writing stating that the work will be a work for hire.

This would be a good time to get into the habit of registering your images with the U.S. Copyright Office. You own the copyright at the moment of creation but without registration, the ability to deter and recover from infringers is very much impaired for most practical purposes. Infringement not only can cost you revenues, in some cases it can gut the market for your images. Conversely, courts tend to award reasonably high damages to copyright owners who registered their images prior to the infringement or within 3 months of the first authorized publication. I have posted some more information on how to do <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/copy1.htm">group and collection registrations</A> at my website. Congratulations and good luck.

I second the Domke F-802 Reporter's Satchel which looks like an ordinary canvas briefcase. It comes with an insert can be used to make two or three compartments. The two large side pockets are covered by the large flap and well sized for accessories. I have used mine to carry outfits ranging from a 35mm SLR with four lenses and SB-24 flash to a Graflex Super Graphic and meter.

You should definitely register this image with the Copyright Office. As stated above, the forms are available at the U.S. Copyright Office's website and are easy to complete. I would strongly recommend that you start registering your workflow as a matter of course. Unpublished images, <i>i.e.</i>, those not yet offered for sale, can be registered as "collections" which means that you can register an unlimited number of images for the same $30 fee. More details can be found on my <A HREF="http://www.krages.com//copy1.htm">copyright page</A>.

<p>This is a pure trademark issue. For some more information about how courts look at trademark issues, photography, and posters; you might want to download this <A HREF="http://www.vlaa.org/pdfs/RockHall.pdf">summary</A> of the <A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/jan98/98a0020p.06.html">Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile</A> case.

 

<p>In the meanwhile, good luck against Iowa. F___'em Bucky. Go Cats.

The image you posted is too small to evaluate critically but it looks as if the problem might be with tracking or possibly even field rotation. A 50mm lens at f/2.8 should not be showing much in the way of aberrations. How was the camera mounted and what was the length of the exposure?

<p>Maxx, you seem to have an overly restrictive view of what subjects you can and cannot photograph. For the most part, you are free to photograph in public places without fear of intruding on privacy. A summary of your rights can be found in <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">The Photographer's Right</A> flyer and even more detail can be found in <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm">Legal Handbook for Photographers</A>. You don't need permission from building owners to sell photographs of their buildings. Likewise, if they want to keep their sidewalks private, they need to conceal them from public view.

 

<p>Good luck.

<P>The relevant section reads:

 

<P>"The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."

 

<P>There are not any cases involving situations with buildings not visible from a public place. I suppose a hypothetical situation would be an architect concealing a building under a large tent to keep its design a secret prior to unveiling it. In such a case, someone surreptiously taking a photograph would violate the copyright. But you are right, in the ordinary case most buildings are visible to the public.

Statutory and case law says that you can publish these images without infringing copyright and without a property release. Although buildings are subject to copyright protection, 17 USC sec. 120 exempts photographs of publicly visible buildings. Likewise, several cases including Gentile v. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame make it clear that building owners cannot prohibit the publication of images of their buildings. More detail can be found in books on photography law such as the one I wrote, <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm">Legal Handbook for Photographers</A>.

The Patriot Act does not impose any restrictions on photography. Neither does the Homeland Security Act.

No.