# My first run in with copyright / trademark issues with architecture



## yorgasor (Sep 16, 2015)

So, I had an interesting experience this past week. I thought I'd share what I learned and see if there was more wisdom from the group at large. Obviously, I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute official legal advice.

I was invited to a private girl's college to photograph a play by the director. It was my first time to the school, and I saw they had some beautiful architecture. When I was done, I took a few photographs and posted them on Facebook. They were shared with the school alumnae page, and immediately there were requests for prints and more photos. After a quick check of their policy, it looked like it was safe to sell prints of the photos as long as I didn't include their name or any of their trademarked symbols, so I went ahead and created a smugmug account and made them available for sale.



Johnson Hall by Ron Yorgason, on Flickr

There were requests on facebook for more images, and to get shots of the grand staircase inside their main building. I wanted to make sure this was permitted, so I contacted the school, showed them my work, and asked if I needed any special permission to go inside and take photos. This is what I was told:

[This] is a private college, therefore our campus is not open to vendors coming on campus without prior permission. When photographers are hired to photograph an event, such as a theater production, permission has not been granted to take photos of our campus or persons on our campus unless prior arrangement has been made through the Marketing or Events office.

Regarding the sale of any image that represents the college -- our iconic buildings (interior and exterior), fountains and other areas on our campus are licensed trademarks. All vendors must have a license from our licensing agency in order to sell any image of the college. We ask that you remove the photos from your website until you have become a licensed vendor of the college. 

There are several issues at play here that I've been researching, to see if I was really in the wrong here. The easiest one to remove was copyright. They didn't make any claim to copyright in their email, but it came up in my research. In the US, architecture was permitted to by copyrighted starting Dec 1, 1990. Any buildings built after this time could theoretically make a copyright claim, but not if the building was visible from public spaces. The buildings on this campus are 70+ years old, so that wasn't an issue.

The next issue was one of trademark. Their website specifically says:

[Our] marks are any and all names, trademarks, logos, insignias, seals, designs, symbols or any combination of these that has come to be associated with [the school]. 

What is clearly forbidden is selling prints with the school name on it, or any symbols or marks that would specifically imply that the image is an officially sanctioned image of the school. As for the buildings themselves, if they are iconic and associated with the school, they can be trademarked. However, I should be able to use them as long as I'm not using the images to sell similar goods or services (ie, I can't use a photo of their building to promote my own school).

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html
In order for a trademark owner to stop you, the following would have to be true: 
(1) the building would have to have an identifiable, distinctive appearance; 
(2) the building would have to be publicly associated with certain goods or services; 
(3) your use would have to be commercial (not editorial); 
and (4) your use would have to be linked to an offer or endorsement of similar goods or services. 

So far, things looked pretty good in my favor. Where things get more complicated is the case of private property. I could take photos from public land if I had a good telephoto and a clear line of sight, but it is pretty far from the road. The question is one of trespassing, and so far I don't have a good answer for that. I was specifically invited on campus to do photography, 

These links have some information on a few different relevant cases:

http://aphotoeditor.com/2013/08/26/reader-question-licensing-images-shot-on-private-property/

The Food Lion case is interesting as well. People got jobs at Food Lion specifically to do an expose on how Food Lion handles food unsafely. They had permission to be at the store, but they did not have permission to photograph things. In particular, they gained permission through fraudulent pretenses. They were found guilty and charged $1 in fines.

One line that caught my attention here was:

"If you are on the property and the owner sees but doesn’t stop you from taking photos, you have implied consent to do so."

A security guard drove right by me while I was taking these photos. I wasn't asked to leave or stop taking photos. I suspect I would beat any trespass argument in court as well.

http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-the-lawsuit-against-benjamin-ham-for-photographing-private-property/


So, I believe I am in the right, but being right does not necessarily mean I should keep selling more prints, nor that I should go back and take more pictures of their campus. For one, I've now been told that I can't take pictures without their permission. For another, I'd like to be on their good side, maybe get licensed and then be invited to take pictures of their campus on an official level. At the very least, I'd like to keep getting invited back to photograph the theatre productions.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2015)

I would take down all the images you have in public places, including the one above.

I would write to them and explain the error that had been made and make a charitable donation (tax deductible) to the order of the money you had made.

I would ask that they accept your application to be an official vendor and point out the interest your images have already created and that yu have nothing but respect for the institution and their rules.

Sound over the top? Think of it like this, if I was on the application committee and saw this thread with another, in their eyes, unauthorised image I'd ban you from the grounds.

As you say, being in the right doesn't make much difference when there is a future you would like that includes further dealings with a private entity.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I would take down all the images you have in public places, including the one above.
> 
> I would write to them and explain the error that had been made and make a charitable donation (tax deductible) to the order of the money you had made.
> 
> ...




I've only removed the images from Smugmug as that was the only site where you could buy prints. I think they'd have a hard case to make that you couldn't take pictures for personal/non-commercial use. However I did ask them for clarification on that. I'll see what they say.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2015)

It isn't about making a case, it is about peoples feelings. They feel they 'own' the college, sure in the real world they don't, but you pointing that out is not going to make for a successful foundation going forwards.

If I were them then I'd look at you being a trouble maker who is more interested in your rights than the college's image, I wouldn't want you anywhere near the premises.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 16, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> So, I believe I am in the right, but being right does not necessarily mean I should keep selling more prints, nor that I should go back and take more pictures of their campus. For one, I've now been told that I can't take pictures without their permission. For another, I'd like to be on their good side, maybe get licensed and then be invited to take pictures of their campus on an official level. At the very least, I'd like to keep getting invited back to photograph the theatre productions.



This chapter is exactly correct. You might be right, but no point pushing it.


----------



## Pookie (Sep 16, 2015)

In the states it is a very explicit law when on private land. Either you get a property release or prepare for court. I shoot for many companies here in the bay area (Google, Apple, Boeing, etc) and I will tell you these are very litigious entities. They can and will check. Most of my corporate clients make this very well know... no pictures of badges, whiteboards, office space etc. This is also true of many wedding venues, as a rule of thumb I always get releases for both property and people. 

Where you royally screwed up was taking the images on private property first and then asking afterwards. If you had asked first and had a property release with you, perhaps you could have gotten the ok. After the fact, the answer will almost universally be no. Now that you are on there radar, I'd be very careful. Ignorance of the law is not going to fly in court. I see you still have them up on Flickr... perhaps they won't find them but if they do and they have told you to take them down, you could already be facing an escalation. It's up to you but the cost of court will ruin most peoples day.

The other aspect of this situation... it looks bad for all photographers and this is why often you'll find specific signage at once "open" sites as they (the property owners) have had to deal with photographers like you at sometime in the past. What happens then... they ban all cameras on site. Essentially it's bad form on your part and you ruined it for everyone after you.

Check with ASMP as they have a very good outline of why you need release. It has nothing to do with you selling images or "peoples feeling". It actually the law...

https://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 16, 2015)

I agree with PBD... if you think this is a good business opportunity, pursue it as such. I assume their license requirement is intended to provide them with a royalty as well as establish a definitive set of rules. Find out what their requirements are. If reasonable, sign up -- especially if you can get exclusive access in some cases. Maybe you can leverage this into doing more PR work for them. (But watch out for "work for hire" clauses that would give them ownership of the images!)

Even if you are right, you don't want the cost and time that proving it in court will entail. If you win you likely lose any future business opportunity here, so what exactly is the gain? Plus, word will spread and it could impact other unforeseen opportunities.

Having worked as PR photog at a University I fully understand where they are coming from. At the same time I suspect you are partly right. Some of what they think or claim is protected by copyright or trademark probably isn't. It's their opinion, but it's also their property. Respect it, don't fight it.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 17, 2015)

Pookie said:


> *snip*
> 
> Check with ASMP as they have a very good outline of why you need release. It has nothing to do with you selling images or "peoples feeling". It actually the law...
> 
> https://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html



This link states:

"...Property has none of these rights. So why should you go to the trouble to get a release?

It’s a good question, but one that requires a complicated answer. ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property. The recommendation that you get one is based upon two legal theories."

This sounds less like "get a release because it's the law" and more like "we recommend getting a release because the law in these matters isn't well established"


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 17, 2015)

What is all boils down to, is that its private property and not public. You can likely take photos of a friend at their request where a building is incidental to the photo, but they own image rights to photos of their buildings. 

I would do as suggested. If they decide to make a legal case out of it, you may have to plan on a $25,000 down payment to your attorney to fight it. If you don't, then whatever claim they make for damages is automatically awarded.

Do as others suggested, make a friend of them, donate some money.

When I went to take photos of my son in his college play, I ran into the same issue. They have a photographer contracted to take the photos and when they saw my professional equipment, they were concerned that I'd be selling prints. I explained that the photos were for my personal use, and they grudgingly allowed me to continue.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 17, 2015)

Not many lawyers are good photographers. Conversely... :


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 17, 2015)

quote author=privatebydesign link=topic=27708.msg547337#msg547337 date=1442434549]
I would take down all the images you have in public places, including the one above.

I would write to them and explain the error that had been made and make a charitable donation (tax deductible) to the order of the money you had made.

I would ask that they accept your application to be an official vendor and point out the interest your images have already created and that yu have nothing but respect for the institution and their rules.

Sound over the top? Think of it like this, if I was on the application committee and saw this thread with another, in their eyes, unauthorised image I'd ban you from the grounds.

As you say, being in the right doesn't make much difference when there is a future you would like that includes further dealings with a private entity.
[/quote]


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 17, 2015)

As a disinterested third party with no formal legal training, I think that this is excellent advice. You may make a friend oout of some of the powers that be (maybe even send them a print for their next admissions cycle), and turn this into a profitable venture for your.

On the other hand I have never had a professional encounter with an attorney that was enjoyable.

sek



scottkinfw said:


> quote author=privatebydesign link=topic=27708.msg547337#msg547337 date=1442434549]
> I would take down all the images you have in public places, including the one above.
> 
> I would write to them and explain the error that had been made and make a charitable donation (tax deductible) to the order of the money you had made.
> ...


[/quote]


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 17, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > *snip*
> ...



Except they're not assuming you are taking a picture on a private property...

As PBD and others have stated, irrespective of whether you think you are in the right (and I personally don't think you are, you would lose in court), rather than take a short-term view, taking the longer term view and follow the approach outlined.

Btw, you have no proof that a security guard saw you unless you have a photo of him looking at you when you were taking the photo and can prove that you yourself at that same time were using photographic equipment. Finally, how would a security guard know if you were authorised or not? The college would say it is not his duty...


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 17, 2015)

I really only have experience with Australia intellectual property law, but US principles aren't that dissimilar. You'd have to do some checking to see exactly what they have trademarked. Just because their website says they've trademarked something, doesn't mean they actually have. There are also different classes of activities that their trademark application will relate to. Learning to research the USPTO database is a starting point. But assuming that they've been very thorough with their application, they might have a good argument. If you're happy to spend money on legal fees, you might have a good defence. But like most legal disputes, most trademark matters are eventually "won" by the party with the deepest pockets. Is that you? Does it mean that much to you?

With trespassing, the fact that a security guard drove past you doesn't give you implied consent. Rules vary from place to place, but if you are found to be trespassing it will likely follow that you won't be able to profit from your activities. But it sounds like you were invited on to the campus and had a legitimate reason for being there. Once again both the college and yourself would probably have arguments supporting your cases. 

The big question is what are you going to gain by making an issue of this? Privatebydesign's first post is the right answer.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 17, 2015)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25855.msg510103#msg510103


----------



## jd7 (Sep 17, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> With trespassing, the fact that a security guard drove past you doesn't give you implied consent. Rules vary from place to place, but if you are found to be trespassing it will likely follow that you won't be able to profit from your activities. But it sounds like you were invited on to the campus and had a legitimate reason for being there. Once again both the college and yourself would probably have arguments supporting your cases.
> 
> The big question is what are you going to gain by making an issue of this? Privatebydesign's first post is the right answer.



To the extent trespass is the issue, seems clear the OP had a licence to come on to the premises. The question is whether the licence extended to permitting him to take the photos he did. If it did not, he became a trespasser when he took the photos. 

That said, the school will no doubt say now the licence didn't extend to the OP taking the photos because with the benefit of hindsight that is what they would have said if they had specifically turned their minds to it. That doesn't necessarily decide he question of what the scope of the licence actually was. 

From a practical perspective though, PBD's answer may well be the most pragmatic and sensible. If it was me though I'd be tempted to work out whether what they claim really stacks up and if not, tell them to go jump!


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 17, 2015)

jd7 said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > With trespassing, the fact that a security guard drove past you doesn't give you implied consent. Rules vary from place to place, but if you are found to be trespassing it will likely follow that you won't be able to profit from your activities. But it sounds like you were invited on to the campus and had a legitimate reason for being there. Once again both the college and yourself would probably have arguments supporting your cases.
> ...



It does stack up. He was there with a specific brief and on private property to conduct that brief. It's "white list" as opposed to "black list". If had taken it from public space, then reasonably ok. He didn't so unless the States has some wacky interpretation, then I don't see where the argument is.

The OP has, no doubt innocently, taken shots of the building as it is photogenic. 

If no one had been interested in purchasing, and the college had asked him to take them down, he probably would have complied.... 

It's because there is now a value to those shots that he wants to see if he can find a way to make money from his talent without registering.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 17, 2015)

Here is my 2 cents as I have done a lot of commercial architecture work... Any time your on public lands, you are safe to do as you see fit, BUT, increasingly professional photographers are being targeted by the police citing the need for city permits to take photos on public land... so, if you can get the shot done without drawing attention to yourself, all the better. Anytime your on private property, then you run the risk of trademark and licensing and other claims to your work. If you want to show off the buildings on your personal pages, websites, etc to show off your skills, you have a case saying you own copyright, and in those cases, it's almost easier to do it and apologize later... Getting permission before hand, especially to a new vendor, can almost be like pulling teeth. And maybe if you sweetly come back to them with your final work, showing the best of the best that you can do of their property, maybe offering them a few complimentary wall prints, you can sweet talk your way into getting a fast track pass into being a new vendor. But selling the prints and then asking for more may have rubbed a few feathers the wrong way if you know what i mean.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 17, 2015)

Put it down to E for experience. You were on private property and hadn't been invited in to take pictures of the buildings. If you have had interest in the images from your on line account Private's advice makes sense. But don't be disappointed when the college want to take a large cut out of it.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 17, 2015)

And just to be clear, this isn't my attempt to "stick it to the man." I have absolutely no intention of drawing this out into a big legal battle, and I've specifically told them I've removed the images from SmugMug and asked for clarification as to whether this requires removal from Facebook & Flickr. I have also asked specifically if their photography rules apply only to selling prints or whether it is ok to take photos there for personal use. I'm trying to learn their unwritten policies so that I don't run into these issues again, and so I can be a good visitor.

This was however, my first run in with the idea that I couldn't take pictures on semi-public land. Semi-public, meaning there are thousands of people on the premises and they specifically state on their website that they welcome visitors, and I found no rules posted online or on the premises that photography was not allowed. I have friends that currently attend and graduated from there, and they had no idea such rules existed. 

Since this was my first run in, I wanted to find out what the laws state so I can reduce the number of conflicts in the future. I've been doing photography for a couple years and haven't come across a situation where I needed to learn these, so I thought I'd share my research, post the sources, and see if my actions could be defended by current law. I obviously have no intent on defending my position in a court of law, that would be financial suicide, and if that were my intent I would be talking to actual lawyers instead of reading articles and generating discussions here. So, with that out of the way, let me try and guide this discussion back to what I was hoping photographers more experienced in this area might shed some light on.

As I mentioned in the original post, in a hypothetical legal case, the stickiest part of this situation is the part of private property. In the Food Lion case, people lied about their intent to gain employment to gain access to areas of the store not allowed by others. Their intent was to defame the store and cause financial and reputational harm. They were found guilty, but only fined $1. In my case, I was invited on campus specifically as a photographer and took photos of the open campus that anyone could see and were invited to visit.

In the case regarding the photographer who took photos of the trees, he specifically climbed over a fence and passed multiple "no trespassing" signs. In this case, they tried to charge him with conversion (this is one of the two reasons given as a recommendation for getting a property release signed), where conversion is one person getting financial gain off of another person's property. This is how the judge ruled on this issue:

[T]he court simply cannot see how the gravamen of the conversion claim is not simply this: that Defendant unlawfully photographed an image belonging to Plaintiff and is now commercially distributing it. Plaintiff has not asserted that Defendant took any tangible object, so the only possible property of Plaintiff’s that Defendant is alleged to have converted is the image of “Plantation Road.”Disputes over ownership, use, or distribution of photographs and images are properly the realm of federal copyright law.

As I mentioned in the original post, buildings older than Dec 1, 1990 cannot be copyrighted. It's a trademarked building (I'm sure the main building is trademarked, I really doubt but have not verified that the other buildings are trademarked), but since I'm not using their building to promote similar goods and services, and I'm not using official names or seals on the photos, no one is likely to be confused that I'm selling officially licensed goods. 

So, this boils down to the subject of trespassing. If two people walk uninvited to a spot on private property that says "visitors welcome," one takes a picture and the other doesn't, does that make the photographer a trespasser and the other innocent? What if one person takes a photo with a big scary professional camera (the "assault rifle" of cameras) while the other person takes a picture with his cellphone. Are they both trespassers now? 

Here's another scenario. A person is invited onto private property to take a picture of a tree. In the invitation, he was not given any type of warning that he was expressly forbidden from taking any other kinds of pictures. After taking a picture of a tree, the person sees a really cool rock. If he stops to take a picture of the rock, is he suddenly trespassing?

Earlier in this thread, Pookie stated, "Ignorance of the law is not going to fly in court." In the case of trespassing, my understanding is that ignorance is very much a defense. If you walk on someone's land, they tell you to leave, and you leave. You can't be charged with trespassing unless you stay or return, knowing that you've been told that it's not allowed. In my case, I was invited onto the property to take photos without being told I wasn't allowed to take photos of other things. There are no rules posted on the grounds or anywhere on their website. It's not a law that says I can't take photos of their buildings, it's their own private rules, and I can't be held liable for them unless they tell them to me. However, now that I've been told, I would very much be trespassing if I took additional photos of their buildings without permission.

I haven't researched trespassing yet, so I'm going off of my base understanding. If these are incorrect, I'd very much like to be informed, and if you have sources to quote, then even better. I'm more interested in increasing my understanding and sharing the value of that understanding with others rather than beating others into submission with my ignorance


----------



## unfocused (Sep 17, 2015)

I would echo the comments and advice of Private and others.

There seems to be a key statement that you are overlooking:



> All vendors must have a license from our licensing agency in order to sell any image of the college. We ask that you remove the photos from your website until you have become a licensed vendor of the college.



In plain English, this means the college has signed a contract with a third party to review and approve anything connected with the college that might have a financial value: the college's name, logo, sports mascot, buildings, etc. etc. This licensing entity reviews any request to use any of these items and secure a percentage of the profits for the college. One aspect of this is that the agreement with the college probably requires the college to take necessary steps to protect the value of the college's image. 

Strictly speaking, they could argue that when you post an image to Facebook that anyone can copy and redistribute, you are diminishing the value of the items they sell. Why, for example, would someone pay for a poster of the library and fountains, when they can copy your picture off of the Canon Rumors Forum, resize it and create their own poster? In that case, it doesn't matter that you aren't selling the image, what matters is that you have appropriated it and are diminishing the revenue stream they can receive. 

This is something that people often get confused about when it comes to copyright. Copyright is a commercial protection designed to protect the revenue stream of the copyright holder. Any use of copyrighted material that diminishes the revenue stream can be a copyright violation, whether or not you are personally profiting from the use of the copyrighted item. 

The fact that they are using a third party to license products would make me very nervous. The college may not have the resources, or the desire, to pursue a copyright infringement suit. But the company that holds the licensing agreement does this for a living and they almost certainly have access to a squadron of lawyers who are only too ready to protect the value of their clients' property.

Chalk it up to experience and let it go.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 17, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I would echo the comments and advice of Private and others.
> 
> There seems to be a key statement that you are overlooking:
> 
> ...



This is why I have asked the school specifically what their rules are and whether they want me to remove the photos from Facebook and Flickr too. I will post an update on what they say. So far, I haven't heard anything from them since the first email I've received from their marketing dept. They do have admin control on the Facebook thread on their alumni page. They removed my friend's post that included a link to the SmugMug page, but they did not remove that person's post with the pictures, which they clearly have the ability to do.

As for copyright, the law clearly states that buildings have no copyright protection if they were built before 1990. You can't copyright anything just because you make money from it. The laws are meant to balance the rights of owners with those of the public. And even though corporations have been bribing congress for years to continually tilt that balance to the favor of the corporations (google the Mickey Mouse law), they can't apply the new architectural copyright laws on buildings built before the law was passed.


----------



## Tinky (Sep 17, 2015)

My take, not being a lawyer, not being in your jurisdiction, not being a professional photographer...

..but being a full-time professional film-maker..

If a client commissions me for a job I charge an amount I am happy with for that job and count on no future income from that job.

They want the use of my skills and my gear then they own what I produce.

They accept by email my terms of delivery and then that's it. Anything I make whilst on their time is theirs.
My terms usually include that I can share links from their public pages for showreel purposes. I give them a master optical disc and recommend a duplicator. Once they've signed off on the job that's it. Onto the next one.

If they come back looking for a re-edit in six months time, then thats chargable extra. If they want me to pull rushes from archive for some purpose, thats a chargable extra, technical process, time, etc. But I don't expect the job to keep on paying now and forever.

I think it is is a bit cheeky to charge for my time then charge again, and again, and again, again. They've paid you to take images of a set event. You went off remit during your authorised access. You are now being slightly disingenuous by hoping to make an additional buck.

The law in the UK is quite clear under the copyrights and patents act 2000. When you commission any work or are commissioned to perform any work the photographer / creator owns the work UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED BY CONTRACT. Smart clients have you accept their terms that they own the work. 

I think that seems fair. The law is designed to stop creatives getting ripped off. Charge a decent rate and rescind your rights. Have a line agreed with the client that you can use the work for showreel purposes.

Don't scrabble about for internet sales on work done on somebody elses clock. It's unprofessional and grubby.
And your white balance needs a little work.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> I was invited to a private girl's college to photograph a play by the director.
> 
> 
> The Food Lion case is interesting as well. People got jobs at Food Lion specifically to do an expose on how Food Lion handles food unsafely. They had permission to be at the store, but they did not have permission to photograph things. In particular, they gained permission through fraudulent pretenses. They were found guilty and charged $1 in fines.



Legal advice or moral advice which do you want. Looks like you were invited to take pictures at an event that was public. I doubt they have much of a legal footing. For that mater they would have to prove damages, and they have none.

However it is interesting you pointed out Food Lion. That happened over 20 years ago, Food Lion was booming and the construction company I headed was working on multiple stores as a subcontractor when that series came out. Food Lion went from mass expansion to no growth in a matter of months. The stores we helped build never even opened. Food Lion lost millions, but the people taking those photos had set out to bring Food Lion down. I do not know if you are correct on the $1, but if they can cost a company millions and only get a $1 fine just how much do you think you will be penalized for selling a few shots of building that looks nice.


----------



## Nitroman (Sep 17, 2015)

Yet again, this is a fine example of how everyone else wants to have a bite of the cake before you do and photographers are left fighting for the left over crumbs.

I can't imagine you're making a fortune from the sale of this image but legally, yes, you would IMO need an official release if it were to go to court.

It's a huge shame that we live in such a litigation society where hard graft and enterprise does not seem to be rewarded. Sign of the times i'm afraid. I suggest a career at McDonalds where you'll even get a pension and sick pay. ;D


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 17, 2015)

Tinky said:


> *snip*
> 
> I think it is is a bit cheeky to charge for my time then charge again, and again, and again, again. They've paid you to take images of a set event. You went off remit during your authorised access. You are now being slightly disingenuous by hoping to make an additional buck.
> 
> ...



I was there doing a favor for the director. There was no contract, no pay, and I was all on my own time. After doing the shoot, I saw a pretty building and took a couple pictures. I shared them with a friend who shared them with the alumni and they came asking me for prints. I wasn't out looking to gouge anyone or line my pockets with millions. I was just trying to be helpful.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 17, 2015)

These threads appear periodically on this site.

Photographer pushes the envelope. Photographer gets in trouble. Photographer starts a thread ostensibly to get other opinions. Forum participants give their opinions which are not in agreement with photographer. Photographer wants to argue the point. Turns out he/she wasn't really seeking opinions, but wanted affirmation that he/she is in the right. Photographer gets ticked off at forum participants. 

Rinse. Wash. Repeat. 

Clearly you disagree with the opinion of most of the people responding to your thread. It appears we aren't going to persuade you and you clearly aren't going to persuade us.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 17, 2015)

unfocused said:


> These threads appear periodically on this site.
> 
> Photographer pushes the envelope. Photographer gets in trouble. Photographer starts a thread ostensibly to get other opinions. Forum participants give their opinions which are not in agreement with photographer. Photographer wants to argue the point. Turns out he/she wasn't really seeking opinions, but wanted affirmation that he/she is in the right. Photographer gets ticked off at forum participants.
> 
> ...



I haven't been ticked off at anybody and have been civil in all comments and responses, even to those that attack my credibility and motives. I'm not looking for opinions on whether I was right or wrong. What I have done was researched the laws and court cases on copyright, trademark, and trespassing and applied it to this specific situation. I'm pretty sure about my interpretation of copyright and trademark laws, and so far no one has pointed to other court cases, laws, or legal articles that discredit my interpretation of them. If you find something, I would love to review it and see how it applies to this situation. 

What I haven't found a whole lot of legal information on is trespassing and photography. I could widen my search to trespassing in general, and see what I can find. I was hoping people in this forum had specific knowledge on this and could provide more insight. There have been some opinions posted, and some people have mentioned their experiences working under contract. Contract law is entirely different, and the terms set in the contract would potentially override rights given to the common man, and lays out what they get in return, or what they must do. If I become a licensed vendor for the school, there would likely be certain rules I need to follow that others don't have. I'm more interested in situations where a person is walking around taking pictures, whether he could get in trouble for it, or when his rights to use those pictures are reduced.

In an effort to distance the discussion from any emotional discussion, I posted earlier a pair of simpler theoretical scenarios to further the discussion on trespassing and photography. I'd love to hear some of the community's position on those, and either reasoning or citations supporting those positions.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > To the extent trespass is the issue, seems clear the OP had a licence to come on to the premises. The question is whether the licence extended to permitting him to take the photos he did. If it did not, he became a trespasser when he took the photos.
> ...



We don't know if it stacks up. You'd have to know the details of all communications the OP had with the college before he took the photos and all of the other circumstances. Let's not forget the context here is photos of a college, not photos inside a top secret research lab or military installation. Anyway, we don't have enough info to know the answer (and I don't expect to see that sort of detail I a web forum).


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2015)

awinphoto said:


> Here is my 2 cents as I have done a lot of commercial architecture work... Any time your on public lands, you are safe to do as you see fit, BUT, increasingly professional photographers are being targeted by the police citing the need for city permits to take photos on public land... so, if you can get the shot done without drawing attention to yourself, all the better. Anytime your on private property, then you run the risk of trademark and licensing and other claims to your work. If you want to show off the buildings on your personal pages, websites, etc to show off your skills, you have a case saying you own copyright, and in those cases, it's almost easier to do it and apologize later... Getting permission before hand, especially to a new vendor, can almost be like pulling teeth. And maybe if you sweetly come back to them with your final work, showing the best of the best that you can do of their property, maybe offering them a few complimentary wall prints, you can sweet talk your way into getting a fast track pass into being a new vendor. But selling the prints and then asking for more may have rubbed a few feathers the wrong way if you know what i mean.



When on private property, trespass becomes an issue. And it comes down to whether you had permission (express or implied) to be there *and* to take the photos you took. If you were trespassing, the photos were taken in breach of the law and, generally speaking, you aren't entitled to keep or use the photos. Note that it doesn't matter whether you are using them for private or for commercial purposes - you aren't titled to keep them. (In a practical sense, if you only use them privately then much chance the property owner finds out, or would be motivated enough to do anything about it.)

Regarding copyright, that is a potential issue whether trespassing or not.
The first question is: Who owns copyright in the photo? Often it is the photographer, but it depends on the circumstances. One obvious exception (but not the only exception) is if the photographer has signed a contract assigning copyright to someone else (usually the person who commissioned the shoot).
The second question is: Is the photo reproducing copyright work (eg copyright in an artwork or copyright in an architectural design). If so, is that permitted without a licence/agreement or is a licence/agreement required? I'm not going to get into that here, except to say that in relation to the OP, if the college buildings are old, my guess is any copyright in the architecture has expired, in which case there is no issue about that in his case.

Regarding trade marks, that is also a potential issue whether trespassing or not. However, there is not necessarily a problem merely because a trade mark is visible in a photograph (contrary to what many trade marks owners seem to think!). Earlier in this thread I put a link to an older thread which has a post from me that talks a bit about that issue, so I won't type it all out again here. (There is also a potential issue of the tort of "passing off", which bears some similarity to trade mark infringement although it is a bit different, and does not depend on there being any registered trade mark.)

PS: 
I should qualify this by saying I am not a US lawyer. However, I'm pretty confident the US law on these issues is close enough to what I am used to that what I have said above is correct.
There are other issues which could perhaps arise too, in particular situations, eg if a photograph showed confidential information.

Edited to emphasise the "and" in the part about trespass


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I would echo the comments and advice of Private and others.
> 
> There seems to be a key statement that you are overlooking:
> 
> ...



The college can have all the licensing arrangements, policies, terms and conditions, etc, it likes. However, just because they exist doesn't mean they are necessarily relevant here. If the OP did not know about them and was not directed to them, in advance, by the college, it's unlikely they have any relevance to the OP's position.

I don't understand why so many people are so quick to conclude the OP is in the wrong here. I have doubts the legal position is as clear as the college thinks and is making out. My experience is many people have a misunderstanding of the extent of their legal rights in these sort of situations, and some can be quite officious about it. 

And while reasonable people can differ about the ethics of a situation like this, my view is it's unclear the OP has done anything he "shouldn't have". Sounds like he was genuinely trying to help out, a situation developed unexpectedly which has given him the opportunity to make a little bit of money after he donated his time, and to the extent there is any difficulty now it stems from a communication issue between him and the college. And while it may be understandable in the circumstances that a communication issue has arisen, the college bears responsibility for that too.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Btw, you have no proof that a security guard saw you unless you have a photo of him looking at you when you were taking the photo and can prove that you yourself at that same time were using photographic equipment. Finally, how would a security guard know if you were authorised or not? The college would say it is not his duty...



While a photograph of the security guard would be good evidence, it is not conclusive "proof", eg it could be photoshopped. The question is whether a court would conclude from the evidence that the security guard was there. And in that regard, the OP's evidence of what he saw is perfectly relevant. If the court accepts his word about it, that's fine.

As for the relevance of the security guard, perhaps there is an argument that the security guard seeing the OP and not stopping him amounts to consent by the college, perhaps not. To be honest I doubt it, but there are a number of issues which would need to be investigated. For example, should the security guard know what is and is not allowed to occur on the premises? What was the relationship between the security guard and the college (eg employee? contractor?)? Too much information we don't have to come to a firm conclusion.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 18, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> What I haven't found a whole lot of legal information on is trespassing and photography. I could widen my search to trespassing in general, and see what I can find. I was hoping people in this forum had specific knowledge on this and could provide more insight.



Trespassing does not apply, you said yourself; "I was invited to a private girl's college to photograph a play by the director."

You had permission to be there.
You had permission to take pictures. 

The question is are you bound by the schools policies since you were unaware of them, and you were asked by a school representative to come and take pictures. I think the argument could be that the director waived school policy when he asked you to take photos.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 18, 2015)

All speculation and few facts... It's quite possible the school has very strict requirements regarding what they would consider professional photography on campus. Potentially the director actually violated their policy by inviting the OP - perhaps unknowingly, perhaps on purpose. It's possible the director should have been using someone who was already a registered vendor to the school and was, in fact, not authorized to invite the OP to photograph in the first place (goes to the issue of trespass). Perhaps the director had had a bad experience using a "licensed" photographer previously and simply decided to take the "seek forgiveness rather than ask permission" route. Or, maybe it was all very innocent and neither the director nor the OP had any idea there could be a problem. We don't know details. Courts are great places to sort out all the details... often at great expense. And, usually the only real winners are the attorneys.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 18, 2015)

jd7 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my 2 cents as I have done a lot of commercial architecture work... Any time your on public lands, you are safe to do as you see fit, BUT, increasingly professional photographers are being targeted by the police citing the need for city permits to take photos on public land... so, if you can get the shot done without drawing attention to yourself, all the better. Anytime your on private property, then you run the risk of trademark and licensing and other claims to your work. If you want to show off the buildings on your personal pages, websites, etc to show off your skills, you have a case saying you own copyright, and in those cases, it's almost easier to do it and apologize later... Getting permission before hand, especially to a new vendor, can almost be like pulling teeth. And maybe if you sweetly come back to them with your final work, showing the best of the best that you can do of their property, maybe offering them a few complimentary wall prints, you can sweet talk your way into getting a fast track pass into being a new vendor. But selling the prints and then asking for more may have rubbed a few feathers the wrong way if you know what i mean.
> ...



I haven't found anything that implies photos take while trespassing are not yours to keep. I still haven't found a good source of information for this particular situation, but this has some good general information:

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-photographers

"When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply)."

This meshes with my understanding such that to be charged with trespassing, you need to either be somewhere you should clearly not be, or in a more public area and refusing to leave when instructed. For example, private areas would be:
* a fenced in yard
* inside a residence or non-public access part of a building (such as "employees only" in a store)
* property clearly marked with "no trespassing"
The wording I've read a couple places is something like "being somewhere you know you shouldn't be."

So, if you're in an area where you've either been invited or the public is generally allowed to be, you can assume your first amendment rights to take photographs, unless there are signs posted signifying "no photography" or they have otherwise let you know photography is not allowed. If the owner sees you taking photos, he could either tell you to stop taking photos and allow you to remain, or he could tell you to leave. If you leave, you are not trespassing. 

I have yet to find any information suggesting the idea that photos obtained this way are still not 100% yours to do with as you see fit. Even if you refuse to leave and the cops arrest you, you still have full rights to your photos. The owner of the property cannot confiscate or inspect your camera or memory card, and according to the ACLU link posted above, neither can the police:

* Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant. 
* Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.

If you can find a source indicating that your rights with the photos are somehow lessened when photographing while trespassing, I'd be interested in seeing it. The link I posted in the original post talked about a photographer who crossed fences clearly marked "no trespassing" to get his photo. The school tried charging him with conversion, such that he used images of their property to make money. The judge ruled that since he did not take a physical item from the property, only an image of it, that this claim was invalid. The only claim that could proceed was that of trespassing. With that being the remaining claim, the parties agreed to a settlement (which was confidential), and his photo is still available for sale.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 18, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> All speculation and few facts... It's quite possible the school has very strict requirements regarding what they would consider professional photography on campus. Potentially the director actually violated their policy by inviting the OP - perhaps unknowingly, perhaps on purpose. It's possible the director should have been using someone who was already a registered vendor to the school and was, in fact, not authorized to invite the OP to photograph in the first place (goes to the issue of trespass). Perhaps the director had had a bad experience using a "licensed" photographer previously and simply decided to take the "seek forgiveness rather than ask permission" route. Or, maybe it was all very innocent and neither the director nor the OP had any idea there could be a problem. We don't know details. Courts are great places to sort out all the details... often at great expense. And, usually the only real winners are the attorneys.



I suspect those ideas are mostly irrelevant. The school specifically says on their website that visitors are welcome. It's an open campus where people are free to come and go. There is a guard at the main entrance but he allows people in as long as it's not after hours. Specifically, the student handbook says:

"Males are not allowed on campus after closing hours (1:00 a.m. Sunday – Thursday; 2:00
a.m. Friday and Saturday) "

If visitors are welcome, potentially anyone could stop by and visit the grounds without trespassing, much like a grocery store. People can't be trespassing if they're there during open hours unless they're asked to leave and refuse to do so. In my particular case, I have now been told I cannot take pictures of the campus buildings or fountains, so if I were to return and take more of these photos, I would then be trespassing. 

I have yet to receive specific details from the college on what these rules are, because they are not posted anywhere or listed on their website. I suspect many people go there and take pictures, the students who go to school there take pictures. It might turn out to be fine for personal use, and only frowned on when selling prints.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 18, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly you disagree with the opinion of most of the people responding to your thread. It appears we aren't going to persuade you and you clearly aren't going to persuade us.
> ...


So, I guess I'm wondering what your point is. 



yorgasor said:


> What I have done was researched the laws and court cases on copyright, trademark, and trespassing and applied it to this specific situation. I'm pretty sure about my interpretation of copyright and trademark laws, and so far no one has pointed to other court cases, laws, or legal articles that discredit my interpretation of them. If you find something, I would love to review it and see how it applies to this situation.



If you are looking for legal advice, the Internet is not the place to get it. 



yorgasor said:


> I'm more interested in situations where a person is walking around taking pictures, whether he could get in trouble for it, or when his rights to use those pictures are reduced...I'd love to hear some of the community's position on those, and either reasoning or citations supporting those positions.


 
I think you've already gotten a consensus opinion from the community, but if that's what you really want, I'm happy to be more specific.

The college is inviting the public on to their grounds. As you were there during the hours that the grounds are open to the public, I doubt that trespass comes into play. 

It doesn't sound like they raised the issue of trespass. 

Even if they invite the public to the grounds, they still have the right to regulate the behavior of those on their property. They have set a rule of no commercial photography of iconic structures on their property. You took a picture of one of their iconic structures and tried to profit from it. They told you not to do that. 

If you wish to challenge their right to prohibit you from profiting from the pictures, you need to see a lawyer and take them to court. A court will then determine all of the facts in the case and rule either for or against you. There is no other way to get a definitive answer. However, if you consult an attorney, they will be happy to research case law and will probably give you a pretty good idea of where you might stand.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > When on private property, trespass becomes an issue. And it comes down to whether you had permission (express or implied) to be there and take the photos you took. If you were trespassing, the photos were taken in breach of the law and, generally speaking, you aren't entitled to keep or use the photos. Note that it doesn't matter whether you are using them for private or for commercial purposes - you aren't titled to keep them. (In a practical sense, if you only use them privately then much chance the property owner finds out, or would be motivated enough to do anything about it.)
> ...



Firstly, to ensure there is no confusion, the "and" in the statement "whether you had permission (express or implied) to be there and take the photos you took" is very important. In legal terms, if someone gives you a licence to come onto private property, the next question is what is the scope of the licence.

As for rights to photographs taken while trespassing, I'm not a US lawyer so I'm afraid I can't give you a confident answer off-hand about the US position. The following case is Australian, but you find it interesting if you can spare the time to read it:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 18, 2015)

jd7 said:


> As for rights to photographs taken while trespassing, I'm not a US lawyer so I'm afraid I can't give you a confident answer off-hand about the US position. The following case is Australian, but you find it interesting if you can spare the time to read it:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html



This case looks interesting. I haven't read all of it, but it looks like the injunction on broadcast rights relied heavily on the right to privacy, rather than whether or not the video was taken while trespassing. The reputation of the meat processing plant would be greatly damaged if the video was broadcast. One aspect they needed to prove was whether or not corporations had the right to privacy. 

In the case of the photographer who jumped the fence to photograph the trees, the school also tried to claim the right to privacy. The defense said that most jurisdictions have faced such claims and have ruled that corporations are not living beings and have no right to privacy. In this case, the judge sidestepped the issue, because in South Carolina law, there are 4 requirements necessary:

(1) publicizing, 
(2) absent any waiver or privilege,
(3) private matters in which the public has no legitimate concern, 
(4) so as to bring shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

The judge ruled that they failed to prove item #4:

'The court can see no way in which the publication of a photo capturing a beautiful image like “Plantation Road” in any way “bring shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.”'


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > As for rights to photographs taken while trespassing, I'm not a US lawyer so I'm afraid I can't give you a confident answer off-hand about the US position. The following case is Australian, but you find it interesting if you can spare the time to read it:
> ...



The case has some complications. The application was against the broadcaster but the broadcaster didn't actually shoot the footage, so the applicant didn't have a straightforward trespass claim against the broadcaster so the applicant had to make a more complicated argument. Australian law does not recognise a general right to privacy (a slightly contentious statement), and the Applicant in the case was a corporation which made a privacy argument even harder. (There are other potential arguments though, eg related to confidential information, defamation and injurious falsehood.) However, you will have seen there is some discussion about trespass and the consequences for footage shot while trespassing.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 18, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > All speculation and few facts... It's quite possible the school has very strict requirements regarding what they would consider professional photography on campus. Potentially the director actually violated their policy by inviting the OP...
> ...


You missed my point, or I made it poorly. The infraction may have been on the part of the director by inviting you on campus to undertake an effectively "forbidden" activity by shooting a performance without the proper license or permit-- i.e. something in violation of school policy. I was on-staff at a University as a PR photographer. Commercial photography, or anything viewed as "professional" photography on-campus was prohibited without a permit (e.g. a wedding photographer using a campus building as a backdrop). The permit included the rules. When permitted, usually a representative of the university observed the shoot to insure proper protocol was followed. Even as staff I had to have a permit if I did a freelance job on-campus like ads for a car dealer or local clothing store (which I have done featuring "iconic" structures in the background). Ironically, there was a theater company on campus. While I had blanket permission to photograph essentially everywhere, the theater was the one place I needed to get agreement from the artistic director/theater manager as well as an assignment sheet from my boss before shooting PR shots for the university's use.


----------



## leGreve (Sep 18, 2015)

Trade marking and copyrightin photos of buildings, within or outside private property, but still available to a larger group of people, is beyond stupid.
It's very clear that laws like that only exist for one purpose and that is to generate extra income to those who would exploit the selfproclaimed copyright infringement.

If anyone from the college is reading this thread... take your buildings and stick them up your ass... seriously.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 18, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> yorgasor said:
> 
> 
> > old-pr-pix said:
> ...



Ah, I see what you mean. When photographing an event, it is supposed to be cleared with their marketing & events dept, and when I go to shoot the final production, I expect the director will take care of that. This particular visit was just to meet the theatre group and get some teaser photos out to promote the play later on. I also suspect the cast will need to sign photo release forms. This is probably the director's first experience using a photographer this way to promote his plays, as I don't think he's been aware of the school policies either. I was referred by a student when I photographed a play she was in over the summer with a different theatre group.


----------



## Northstar (Sep 18, 2015)

PBD has given the best advice thus far. 

If you care about the relationship you should remove every photo you've posted, including the photo in this thread. It's a small world, it's only a matter of time before someone at the school sees this thread and reads your posts. No, you haven't been disrespectful or inappropriate, but you could easily be perceived as someone that could cause them grief or frustration.

I like your photo though! (Although I think you should remove it asap)
North


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 18, 2015)

unfocused said:


> If you wish to challenge their right to prohibit you from profiting from the pictures, you need to see a lawyer and take them to court. A court will then determine all of the facts in the case and rule either for or against you.



I think you have this reversed. If he wishes to challenge their right he should just continue to sell his pictures.
It is up to the school to hire an attorney and stop him to enforce their rights.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 18, 2015)

Ok, I have a response from the school that answers many of the questions and advice that has been offered here:

"It is ok for you to continue to take photos for the theater department of their productions. That is a contract between you and that department. But we ask that you limit your photography to just taking photos of the theater production unless permission has been given from marketing or events for you to take other photos on campus. 

Moving forward if you would like to come on campus and take photos of our campus or buildings then we request that you ask permission from marketing or events. We make this request to protect the college and our students, faculty, and staff from being photographed without permission.

If permission has been granted for you to take photos of campus, than scenic photos can be used for a personal portfolio or website portfolio. But please ask before posting or displaying any photos that have students, faculty or staff.

We request that any current photos of campus are removed from any of your sites where they are for sale. If you want to sell images than you should contact our licensing agency."


So, they have not insisted that I take down the photos on flickr or facebook, only on sites that I offered them for sale. They still want me to get permission before taking more scenic photos, and they want to approve any photos with people in them before I post them.


----------



## Tinky (Sep 19, 2015)

That's not my reading.

My reading is you should take the images you haven't sought prior permission for down.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 19, 2015)

Seems like the next step would be to contact their "licensing agency" to see what terms they offer. That almost sounds like a third party the college has contracted to manage such. I assume any licensing terms would be open to negotiation based on the potential value to both parties.

I don't know the college so the following may not make sense; but, here's what I'd do... Using PBD's outline back on page 1 of this thread... contact the college to see how they handle PR photography and press releases - do they have staff photographer or just use anyone's cell phone shots. Can you get agreement to cover select events beyond theater? The fact that people asked to purchase your prior shots implies such quality shots aren't generally available - or are available at too high price (you need to know which it is). Can you get bookstore to carry some prints? Do they already have dumb stuff like mouse pads, etc. w/images? 

Clearly none of this makes sense if there isn't a market for the product... on the other hand, why do they feel they need to "license" things if there is no market. Cost of the license should be driven by value of the market.

You may not feel it worth the investment to pursue this potential market; but if you don't check, you won't know.


----------



## yorgasor (Sep 19, 2015)

Tinky said:


> That's not my reading.
> 
> My reading is you should take the images you haven't sought prior permission for down.



"We request that any current photos of campus are removed from any of your sites where they are for sale. If you want to sell images than you should contact our licensing agency."

I can't see how this could be interpreted as requiring me to take down photos from sites where they aren't for sale.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 19, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> ...We request that any current photos of campus are removed from any of your sites where they are for sale. If you want to sell images than you should contact our licensing agency."



College's response seems very reasonable. And, I would add, almost exactly what I told you back on page 1 of this thread: 



unfocused said:


> There seems to be a key statement that you are overlooking:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps next time, you can save yourself some time and trouble by listening to someone older and wiser.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 19, 2015)

I've done a lot of work over the years for private schools and colleges. Personally speaking, now I'd rather pop my wedding tackle in a lion's mouth and flick his love spuds with a wet towel whilst shouting "dinner time Fido", rather than shoot for these places.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I've done a lot of work over the years for private schools and colleges. Personally speaking, now I'd rather pop my wedding tackle in a lion's mouth and flick his love spuds with a wet towel whilst shouting "dinner time Fido", rather than shoot for these places.



Now that, I'd like to see ;D


----------



## Tinky (Sep 19, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > That's not my reading.
> ...



try the previous paragraphs.
I don't care enough.
You seek vindication, you seek loopholes. Nobody gives.

You are in the wrong here. And your arrogance is compounding your error.

Get a lawyer. 

They'll usually tell you that you _could_ win. They'll never tell you that you _will_ win.
And they'll still get paid.



yorgasor said:


> "It is ok for you to continue to take photos for the theater department of their productions. That is a contract between you and that department. But we ask that you limit your photography to just taking photos of the theater production unless permission has been given from marketing or events for you to take other photos on campus.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## tpatana (Sep 21, 2015)

Whenever you need to involve lawyers, you already lost.

One time I had idea on how to use one cool picture by a local photog. I sent him email asking if that would be ok, and I was thinking I'd give him six pack of beer or something for that. He responded "Yea, sure, sounds good. Please forward me your lawyer information, and I'll have mine to contact yours for the licensing agreement"

;D

Wasn't the response I was expecting.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2015)

yorgasor said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > That's not my reading.
> ...



I think that their concern is merely money, as others have said. They need to enforce their rules about selling images. If they don't, one day, images may sold to magazines, individuals, whoever, and they want their share.

If you think that there is a market for high quality images of the school, then it is worthwhile to play by their rules. If its not worth the hassle, and Alumni want prints, tell them to contact the school, because you are not allowed to sell them.

However, be careful about trying to research laws and legal cases. Even high priced lawyers with large staff can miss some very important nuance that costs them a case. Obviously, you are not going to spend money on a attorney, and the school is being pretty civil about it, the first step is to let you know their position, and they have done that. You can ignore them or challenge them, but no one wins, except, perhaps attorneys, and we would hope it does not come to that.


----------



## Tinky (Sep 22, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Whenever you need to involve lawyers, you already lost.



My advice to get a lawyer, immediately contradicted by my subsequent paragraph, was of course in jest.

My actual advice to the OP is "let it go, and try and learn something from it"

You can play semantics with their civil reply all you want, you are only going to worsen the relationship and get yourself a bad reputation. You've made a mistake as has been roundly pointed out to you from all angles. If you don't wish to accept that then fill your boots, plough your own furrow. The college has fired a warning shot across your bow. We've all urged caution. It's in your hands.

All the best.


----------

