Untfootball.net Vs. Rjy

[meangreendork]

Such a weird concept that photos of the general public are somehow "owned" by the photographer.... It seems wrong that someone can take photos of the public without their permission or paying them and then claim financial and other rights to them...

The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography (from photojojo.com)

I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game.

III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.

IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.

V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.

VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:

* accident & fire scenes, criminal activities

* bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)

* industrial facilities, Superfund sites

* public utilities, residential & commercial buildings

* children, celebrities, law enforcement officers

* UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Chuck Norris

VII. Although “security” is often given as the reason somebody doesn’t want you to take photos, it’s rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a company’s trade secrets.

VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.)

IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you.

X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you don’t have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.

Edited April 3, 2008 by meangreendork

[UNTLifer]

Sorry I asked

Edited April 3, 2008 by UNTLifer

[Guest 97and03]

Just an FYI, don't ever take a picture of the US Embassy in Damascus. Trust me.

[DeepGreen]

Gotta love it! Oh you know, I hope this one is meant to be funny!!!

Absolutely!

[chrisfisher]

The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography (from photojojo.com)

I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game.

III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.

IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.

V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.

VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:

* accident & fire scenes, criminal activities

* bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)

* industrial facilities, Superfund sites

* public utilities, residential & commercial buildings

* children, celebrities, law enforcement officers

* UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Chuck Norris

VII. Although “security” is often given as the reason somebody doesn’t want you to take photos, it’s rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a company’s trade secrets.

VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.)

IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you.

X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you don’t have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.

It's still weird.

[meangreendork]

It's still weird.

Yeah, it's why I'm glad I didn't get into photojournalism. Knowing all of that, people will still get in your face no matter what you're actually allowed to do.

[Eagle1855]

Man this guy is going to rue the day someone on this board found his website and decided to share it with everyone.

[Cerebus]

Such a weird concept that photos of the general public are somehow "owned" by the photographer.... It seems wrong that someone can take photos of the public without their permission or paying them and then claim financial and other rights to them...

This is how Rick puts food on the table. I assume an artist who paints a scene of people has no rights to it? Or researchers who study patients have no right to their findings.

[Cerebus]

I'm just glad that we as a message board can claim responsbility for the other non-profit website losing some if not a majority of the pictures they were offering for the enjoyment of Mean Green fans. We definitely don't want too many ways for fans to have access to North Texas media. Let's try and keep it to the 2 or 3 websites that are obviously approved by this board.

Next we'll be shutting down illegal mp3 shares or ratting out people who sell TV's that "fell off of trucks".

If you want to use photos, pay the photographer for the right to use them.

[Cerebus]

So give credit where credit is due and just move on...

It seems ashame to me to not let them use them if Rick is given credit as the actual photographer... maybe even a link to his website on the untfootball.net site. Seems like free advertising for Rick and offers improved images for what is a pretty nice site. -- This should be a win-win.

But then who am I to say anything.

Greenblooded, what do you do for a living? Fix cars? Prepare taxes? Paint houses?

How about you go over to Rick's house, and fix his car, prepare his taxes, paint his house or whatever. Rick can take pictures of you doing it, and then you can show those snapshots to other customers. It's worth the free advertising isn't it?

Rick doesn't work so that other people can have free images.

People who want to use his images, need to pay him.

This isn't that hard of a concept.

[Cerebus]

I can't believe the number of people who expect a photographer like Rick to work without compensation. Selling prints and licensing his images are how he makes a living.