Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Legal Issues  (Read 5013 times)
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252


« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2005, 10:39:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know anything about the situation of the Navajo and the canyon, but Didger's use of the term "patent" is both correct and the source of the phrase "patent office." A patent was originally just a letter from the Pope or a King granting a right to some substantial thing -- there were "land patents" which essentially granted land to people. The U.S. "patent office" is just the authority that now grants patents, and has come to be retricted (I think) to inventions, but that restriction reflects a later use of the word.

That the Navaho might restrict photography of a place isn't unusual -- if you wanted to come on my property to take pictures, I might say yes, but then, I certainly have the right to say no. Saying no doesn't necessarily mean you're a jerk, it just means you have your own reasons for saying "no," which might be good ones. If you go out to the very spot where Ansel Adams stood when he took "Moonrise," you'll find a big sign (or at one time you would) prohibiting photography and telling you to go away; having one or two people take a shot from there wouldn't have been a problem, but having hundreds of them trying to rearrange the landscape, park on private property, etc., might be. Some priests and ministers don't allow photography in their churches during wedding ceremonies, because they believe it detracts from the religious meaning of the ceremony...so maybe the Navaho don't want a bunch of tourists clopping around a religious sanctuary trying to make a buck off of it...

 



JC
Logged
gwarrellow
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2005, 02:05:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just for my own education can either you or Didger give me a reliable reference to the term as you describe it.  I apolgise if I have wronged Didger in any way but please educate me Huh
OK I've educated myself.  I found this:

"Here’s how land patents work:

The Land was originally acquired within the United States of America by some Treaty.
Your Land Patent secures the rights of the Treaty upon which the land was originally acquired within the territories of the United States from the Treaty to the individual person named on the patent.
The patent specifically grants the described lands to the party named on the patent and to their heirs and their assigns forever.
The party named on the patent then passes the inheritance, grants, or assigns the patented lands to someone else, which heir or assignee is now named on the patent by that assignment.  The documents that demonstrate such an assignment are often called, "Deeds".
Because the granter can not compel you to accept the assignment it is necessary for you to take some action to signify your acceptance of the assignment.  For this reason we use Team Law's copyrighted "Declaration of Land Patent".
Once you have accepted the proper assignment of the Land Patent with proper documentation, you are named on the physical Land Patent where it says, "and to his heir and assigns forever".

So it looks as if the Treaties that I found were possibly only a stepping stone to the "Land Patent" that Didger mentioned.

Thanks to John and Didger for educating me in American history and terminology.  I am currently eating a piece of tasty humble pie  
Regards and happy shooting,
Graham
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2005, 03:41:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't help anyone out with references.  I've just seen this "patent" usage several times and also that's the word the Navajo guy used.
Quote
so maybe the Navaho don't want a bunch of tourists clopping around a religious sanctuary trying to make a buck off of it..
That's a hilarious concept in the context.  Antelope Canyon is one of the most commercially exploited few hundred square feet of land on the planet.  They make millions of $'s per year on photo tours and scenic tours there.  The Navajos very definitely DO want a bunch of tourists clopping around this "sanctuary".  They just want to squeezee the absolute max bux out of those tourists and photographers by not only charging a bunch to take pictures there, but also charging for any commercial use of any of those pictures.
Logged
gwarrellow
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2005, 04:27:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So I just want to get this straight: If I am shooting in a completely public place, am I safe no matter what I do? Say i am in a park, and I see some kids playing, can I take a picture of them legally without permission? (If the parents kill me that's another thing). Or on a less dramatic scale: I am shooting by the lake, and I take a shot that has a couple walking in the background, not the main subject by any means, but so that their faces are recognizable. Can I take that shot and sell it without their permission legally?

What is a model release and where can I get one from? Also in your experiences, do people usually sign it, or will they tell you to go to he||? What would be there percentage of people who say yes?
Can anyone give Stefan and the rest of us an answer to some of these interesting earlier questions (I know it's my fault for taking the thread off on a tangent)
Thanks,
Graham
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2005, 08:16:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Can you give us some figures didger? How much did they charge you? or did you simply say you wouldnt take pictures?
 I got the lecture about the patent thing because I happened to mention to the tour guide that I might use one of the pictures on a CD cover.  He did his little rant and I gave him a nice silent smile and decided that if I wanted to use a picture I would just use it.

I skipped a page somehow...so deleted the original post as most of what I was saying was more accurately covered on page 2...sometimes I just can't keep up.  

I think we have the same situation here in Europe - however, it is more simply conveyed that if you are standing on private property taking pictures of that property then you need the property owners permission (whether it is a natural or man made object).

The only time it seems to get a little more complicated (in France at least) is that it is permissible to take and sell a picture of the Eiffel Tower, however, you need to get a release if you are selling a picture of the Eiffel Tower when the twinkly lights are switched on. The twinkly lights being classed as a work of art for which you need a release from the artist. I guess the same would hold true for any building which is 'artistically' illuminated - however, you may define that.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad