NO PICTURE! (banned from taking photos of a t-shirt)

K

kasabian

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone,

I was on holiday in San Francisco recently and took a photo whilst in Chinatown. It's of a Bruce Lee t-shirt. It had a label on it insisting that no one take a picture. This of course made me more determined to take one. :lol:

I was just wondering though now - in terms of the law - does the owner of this shop have a right to make such a request? I mean, the t-shirt was displayed outside of his shop, on the pavement along with various other nik-naks. So it's not really even the shop owner's private property I don't think.

Just curious to know what people thought about this...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.ne...168791617_610401616_12035392_1638249812_o.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you get idiots trying to make up their own laws as they go along. I wonder if you have to agree to never be photographed in the shirt if you were to buy it :lol:
 
I suspect this translates as "please dont take pictures of this shirt because i dont have copyright to the image i've printed on it and dont want to get into trouble" :lol:
 
Hi, the reason is that those T-shirts design are copy righted . It's as if a painter or photographer display his work for sale or not on the street. It's to prevent people to copy his work and make profit out of it. We have lots of artists in old Montreal doing the same thing. I'm a photographer and I would not like someone taking photos of my photos and I respect all other for of art.
 
the chances of the t shirt printer having the copyright to those bruce lee pics though is negligible (even if he has licence to use and hasnt just ripped them off the net) - therefore his T shirt is already a derivative work and it would be a case of clear double standards not to want it photographed on these grounds
 
sdoucet said:
Hi, the reason is that those T-shirts design are copy righted . It's as if a painter or photographer display his work for sale or not on the street. It's to prevent people to copy his work and make profit out of it. We have lots of artists in old Montreal doing the same thing. I'm a photographer and I would not like someone taking photos of my photos and I respect all other for of art.
Click to expand...

/Off to get some popcorn
 
Dave, would you E-mail me one of your photos, my sale rack is getting a bit empty.
...... respect down the drain
 
Big soft moose, can you send me a photo, I promise I will modify it a bit before I resale it. Thanks
 
big soft moose said:
I suspect this translates as "please dont take pictures of this shirt because i dont have copyright to the image i've printed on it and dont want to get into trouble" :lol:
Click to expand...
+1
I suspect that's hit the nail on the head.
 
Kasabian, did it cross your mind to ask the person why he don't want you to take a picture instead of taking it no matter what.
 
It that means my opinion is not as welcome? ?? I have years of posting and paying member on photo.net... what's your point? ??
 
if someone wanted to copy that design they could just buy the t-shirt couldn't they? it'd be a damn site easier to copy it that way than to take a picture of it.

i'm surprised the shop owner didn't show you his Fist of Fury :eek:
 
It's just a question of respect. And the best way to know why, is to ask. What about property right? ? Taking a photo of his stand and property (the T-shirt) is like taking a photo of my house from the street with a big sign NO PHOTOS. In front of it. Anyway, I believe it's not a question of law, but a question of respect.
 
I'm up to 7 posts.... yahoo I'm becoming more important :))
 
sdoucet said:
It's just a question of respect. And the best way to know why, is to ask. What about property right? ? Taking a photo of his stand and property (the T-shirt) is like taking a photo of my house from the street with a big sign NO PHOTOS. In front of it. Anyway, I believe it's not a question of law, but a question of respect.
Click to expand...

Firstly you need to get some facts straight.

US copyright is very different from Canadian copyright, which is similar to the laws in the UK.

If you want to have a dig at forum members in your first few posts, make sure that you really understand what you are talking about first before spouting gumph.


However in either case there is no copyright infringement in posting the photo on a forum!

Secondly it doesn't matter how long you've been posting on photo.net; this is a different forum, so sort your attitude out if you want to stay here.
 
DemiLion said:
Firstly you need to get some facts straight.

US copyright is very different from Canadian copyright, which is similar to the laws in the UK.

If you want to have a dig at forum members in your first few posts, make sure that you really understand what you are talking about first before spouting gumph.


However in either case there is no copyright infringement in posting the photo on a forum!

Secondly it doesn't matter how long you've been posting on photo.net; this is a different forum, so sort your attitude out if you want to stay here.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

Heather
 
sdoucet said:
Big soft moose, can you send me a photo, I promise I will modify it a bit before I resale it. Thanks
Click to expand...

Sure no problem - If you'd like to send me a derivative work created from images you don't own the copyright for , i'll be happy to photograph it and send you the image file.
 
Hey sdouchet, what's with all the hostility? I'm just following Bruce Lee's mantra of living my life. Do you think Bruce asked permission before he kicked someone in the face or karate chopped them in knees? Would it have made a difference if his victims were holding up signs that read "PLEASE NO BEATING ME UP"

If your house had a sign in front of it saying NO PHOTOS, rest assured I would be taking lots of photos of it. Because - I'll admit it - I quite enjoy annoying uptight imbeciles who think they can tell people what to do by making up their own rules.

But anyway, I'm not really interested in what you deem to be respectful or disrespectful. I'm only interested in what the legal standpoint is.
 
Last edited:
sdoucet said:
Hi, the reason is that those T-shirts design are copy righted . It's as if a painter or photographer display his work for sale or not on the street. It's to prevent people to copy his work and make profit out of it. We have lots of artists in old Montreal doing the same thing. I'm a photographer and I would not like someone taking photos of my photos and I respect all other for of art.
Click to expand...

sdoucet said:
Dave, would you E-mail me one of your photos, my sale rack is getting a bit empty.
...... respect down the drain
Click to expand...

sdoucet said:
Big soft moose, can you send me a photo, I promise I will modify it a bit before I resale it. Thanks
Click to expand...

sdoucet said:
Kasabian, did it cross your mind to ask the person why he don't want you to take a picture instead of taking it no matter what.
Click to expand...

sdoucet said:
It that means my opinion is not as welcome? ?? I have years of posting and paying member on photo.net... what's your point? ??
Click to expand...

SOURCE

A member of the photo.net community since January 27, 2012 That don't seem that long to me :suspect:

sdoucet said:
It's just a question of respect. And the best way to know why, is to ask. What about property right? ? Taking a photo of his stand and property (the T-shirt) is like taking a photo of my house from the street with a big sign NO PHOTOS. In front of it. Anyway, I believe it's not a question of law, but a question of respect.
Click to expand...

sdoucet said:
I'm up to 7 posts.... yahoo I'm becoming more important :))
Click to expand...

A cynic would say that your a troll and not a very convincing one who is full of hyperbole and conjecture ...what can I say I'm a cynic
 
Last edited:
kasabian said:
If your house had a sign in front of it saying NO PHOTOS, rest assured I would be taking lots of photos of it. Because - I'll admit it - I quite enjoy annoying uptight imbeciles who think they can tell people what to do by making up their own rules.
Click to expand...

What a great attitude to have..... I suppose you'd have no issue with people standing in front of you when you want to take pictures because they like annoying uptight imbeciles taking photos? Or....unless there is a specific reason to do so, we could all just try and go around not annoying people ;)

Anyway, as for the post, I did find the photo itself quite amusing and it slightly strange thing to have up on the t-shirt - does that go against what I just said :)
 
MWHCVT said:
A member of the photo.net community since January 27, 2012[/B] That don't seem that long to me :suspect:

A cynic would say that your a troll and not a very convincing one who is full of hyperbole and conjecture ...what can I say I'm a cynic
Click to expand...

Lol - years of posting on photo.net (or at least 3 and a bit months which is very similar :shake:)

who in that time has posted a massive two photos , one of which features other peoples work (this one http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15217855 )

I agree with matt we have le petit troll dans la maison
 
Last edited:
There are artists in Camden market and covent garden who have similar signs up on some images. I chatted to a stall holder on Camden market about his images, lots of vw campers in London locations, including down the tube. He said he'd put the signs up after seeing tshirts etc of his images for sale, postcards and high res images on Flickr. He had about a third of the image covered and would expose it fully if you showed interest.
 
Yeah IMO its fair enough with original photos and artwork - they dont have the right to stop you taking pics, but theres nothing to stop them obscuring some of the image.

Its a bit different when the picture in question isnt original (in this case I'd bet on them being screen grabbed from a bruce lee film or poster) in those circs he's not in a good position to worry about copyright violations
 
Live in Canada for 4 months lived in El Paso, TX for 26 years studied photography and visual communication at Brooks in Santa Barbara. Before you say something get the facts straight. Again it's not. A question of law or rights, it's a question of respect. So far no one was able to argue this part, so they get rude. Just like kids fighting or crying when they have no other way out. Good bye... going back blogging at B&W magazine.
 
Guy's livelihood is probably invested in those tshirts. You might feel all Ally McBeal because you asserted your legal right to use your camera, but it's a pretty d*ckish thing to do when the guy is just trying to protect his living.
 
London Headshots said:
Guy's livelihood is probably invested in those tshirts. You might feel all Ally McBeal because you asserted your legal right to use your camera, but it's a pretty d*ckish thing to do when the guy is just trying to protect his living.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that a photo of a T-Shirt is going to be useful to getting an image of that design to reproduce, and sensible person would buy a copy and scan it if that were there intention, and if I take the other interpretation of what you've put i.e. the guy is concerned about his living because maybe he doesn't have the right to reproduce and sell that image then by taking a photo you cause that action to be discovered then that's even more concerning as it would mean that someone really has had there copyright breached and I'm sure they there would appreciate any help in finding that out :thumbs: but at the end of the day all that I've but there is at best educated guess work :shrug:

Matt
 
London Headshots said:
Guy's livelihood is probably invested in those tshirts. You might feel all Ally McBeal because you asserted your legal right to use your camera, but it's a pretty d*ckish thing to do when the guy is just trying to protect his living.
Click to expand...

Except (and I may have mentioned this once or twice before) do we really believe that he had copyright permissions from the creator of the bruce lee films to use those images ? - Personally I somehow doubt it

therefore trying to prevent other people photographing works where copyright has (may be) allready been violated does smack of double standards

also unless kasabian is planning a nice line of bootleg Tshirts how has he threatened the guys livelihood :shake:
 
sdoucet said:
Live in Canada for 4 months lived in El Paso, TX for 26 years studied photography and visual communication at Brooks in Santa Barbara. Before you say something get the facts straight. Again it's not. A question of law or rights, it's a question of respect. So far no one was able to argue this part, so they get rude. Just like kids fighting or crying when they have no other way out. Good bye... going back blogging at B&W magazine.
Click to expand...

You were the one that came he arguing :shrug: and FYI if you read the rules when joining this forum you would realise that you've just broken them :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
sdoucet said:
Live in Canada for 4 months lived in El Paso, TX for 26 years studied photography and visual communication at Brooks in Santa Barbara. Before you say something get the facts straight. Again it's not. A question of law or rights, it's a question of respect. So far no one was able to argue this part, so they get rude. Just like kids fighting or crying when they have no other way out. Good bye... going back blogging at B&W magazine.
Click to expand...

Actually we have - several times now I've noted that its unlikely the guy concerned owned the copyright to the images printed on the T shirts in the first place (and even if he had permission to use them they arent original) and therefore he isnt deserving of "artists respect"

Also you havent addressed the issue of why it was alright for you to photograph someone elses work on the photo i linked above - did they not deserve your respect ?

As far as I can see the only person crying like a baby is you :dummy: tried to troll a thread, got caught out because "obvious troll is obvious" , dummy on the floor and storming off because you've bull ****ted your way into a corner

:wave:

.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Except (and I may have mentioned this once or twice before) do we really believe that he had copyright permissions from the creator of the bruce lee films to use those images ? - Personally I somehow doubt it

therefore trying to prevent other people photographing works where copyright has (may be) allready been violated does smack of double standards

also unless kasabian is planning a nice line of bootleg Tshirts how has he threatened the guys livelihood :shake:
Click to expand...

Nah, doubt he has the copyright at all, I just feel for anyone who runs a business like that. He won't be making a killing, and he's trying to make money in a world where money is hard to make.

However, the assumption must be that he has, because that's the fair thing to do.
 
MWHCVT said:
Do you honestly think that a photo of a T-Shirt is going to be useful to getting an image of that design to reproduce, and sensible person would buy a copy and scan it if that were there intention, and if I take the other interpretation of what you've put i.e. the guy is concerned about his living because maybe he doesn't have the right to reproduce and sell that image then by taking a photo you cause that action to be discovered then that's even more concerning as it would mean that someone really has had there copyright breached and I'm sure they there would appreciate any help in finding that out :thumbs: but at the end of the day all that I've but there is at best educated guess work :shrug:

Matt
Click to expand...

I don't know what any of that has to do with my post at all.

You have absolutely no proof he doesn't own the copyright on those designs.

Furthermore, my point, if you re-read my post, was about taking the shot just because it was telling you not to. It's a d*ckish, typically amateur-photographer thing to do. It's something that a serious photographer just wouldn't give a crap about.

He has a sign up saying he's the only person licensed to sell Bruce Lee tshirts in the whole area, so the assumption must be that he does, in fact, hold either a license or a copyright for the designs.
 
All I'm doing is answering just like you do. First, when you let your account at photonet expired, you start from 0 you you join again.that the way the system works. Copyright laws are the most ambiguous laws there is. That's why all the professor I had talks about respect is the best way to avoid problems.
Just for your information, copyright expired after 30 years.
 
Why is everyone making remarks instead of asking. The person in the photo on Photonet is my friend. Wow I'm starting to have fun.
 
sdoucet said:
All I'm doing is answering just like you do. First, when you let your account at photonet expired, you start from 0 you you join again.that the way the system works. Copyright laws are the most ambiguous laws there is. That's why all the professor I had talks about respect is the best way to avoid problems.
Just for your information, copyright expired after 30 years.
Click to expand...

Do you mean copyright in general or specifically the Bruce Lee copyright under discussion?

Heather
 
sdoucet said:
All I'm doing is answering just like you do. First, when you let your account at photonet expired, you start from 0 you you join again.that the way the system works. Copyright laws are the most ambiguous laws there is. That's why all the professor I had talks about respect is the best way to avoid problems.
Just for your information, copyright expired after 30 years.
Click to expand...

I thought you were leaving :shrug:

That aside talking of getting your facts straight copyright doesnt expire after 30 years , it expires 50 years (or in some cases 70) after the death of the copyright holder assuming that the copyright isnt held by a legal entity like a company or studio.

In this particular case a quick google reveals that

Concord Moon LP, the Los Angeles-based company of Shannon Lee (Bruce Lee's daughter) and Linda Lee (Bruce Lee's widow), owns all rights to exploit Bruce Lee's name, likeness, trademarks and works
Click to expand...

The best way to avoid problems is to know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
sdoucet said:
Why is everyone making remarks instead of asking. The person in the photo on Photonet is my friend. Wow I'm starting to have fun.
Click to expand...

Not the person in the picture :shake: - the person who did the graffiti art ! , why was it okay for you to photograph their art ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top