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

[MWHCVT]

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.

You are aware that the vast majority of the membership of TP are just that though Amateur

Also you suggested that he was trying to protect his livelihood, I gave a couple of interpretations on how he is maybe trying to do that

 

[sdoucet]

These are TV's in the background and it's OK to take photos at that location. No one asked not to take pictures. In the case that concerns us someone asked not to.

 

[u8myufo]

Could this be the first T-Shirt thread to get locked in TP history?

 

[MWHCVT]

These are TV's in the background and it's OK to take photos at that location. No one asked not to take pictures. In the case that concerns us someone asked not to.

But what is on the TV is copyright to someone

 

[kasabian]

Guy's livelihood is probably invested in those tshirts.

Give me a break, you're talking rubbish. I'm a graphic designer by trade and I design and print my own t-shirts which I then sell online and to retail outlets. So I know a fair bit about this subject.

As MWHCVT says earlier, if anyone was actually wanting to copy this t-shirt and reproduce it they would need a lot more than just a photograph of it. They would need to purchase it, take it home and scan it. And even then the quality would not be anywhere near good enough to reproduce onto another t-shirt.

If anyone here is being "d*ckish" here it's the shop owner. He's saying: "YOU LIKE T-SHIRT? IF SO, YOU BUY! NO PHOTO! GO AWAY!"

Well I don't accept that, sorry. He didn't design the t-shirt just like he didn't design the Coca Cola cans and the prawn crackers packaging also on sale in his shop. Am I banned from photographing those too? Whether or not he is the only "authorised seller" of official Bruce Lee t-shirts is irrelevant.

As for your comment that it's a...

typically amateur-photographer thing to do. It's something that a serious photographer just wouldn't give a crap about.

 

[MWHCVT]

Could this be the first T-Shirt thread to get locked in TP history?

I think that it could I really shouldn't continue in this thread but I'm very very bored at the moment

 

[DemiLion]

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.

Utter balls. Copyright law is 95% cut and dried. There's very little ambiguous about it at all.

 

[neil_g]

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.

I'd be surprised if he had permission to use the camper and/or it's shape (some try to get around IP usage by removing the badges from the vehicle) from vw, they recently revoked all rights/licencing to use the camper to all of the large clothing companies and chased down those using their IP without permission.

 

[London Headshots]

Give me a break, you're talking rubbish. I'm a graphic designer by trade and I design and print my own t-shirts which I then sell online and to retail outlets. So I know a fair bit about this subject.

As MWHCVT says earlier, if anyone was actually wanting to copy this t-shirt and reproduce it they would need a lot more than just a photograph of it. They would need to purchase it, take it home and scan it. And even then the quality would not be anywhere near good enough to reproduce onto another t-shirt.

If anyone here is being "d*ckish" here it's the shop owner. He's saying: "YOU LIKE T-SHIRT? IF SO, YOU BUY! NO PHOTO! GO AWAY!"

Well I don't accept that, sorry. He didn't design the t-shirt just like he didn't design the Coca Cola cans and the prawn crackers packaging also on sale in his shop. Am I banned from photographing those too? Whether or not he is the only "authorised seller" of official Bruce Lee t-shirts is irrelevant.

As for your comment that it's a...

You sell tshirts, so you know as much about this guys business as I do about a guy on a street corner selling licensed postcards of other people's photography. ie. nothing.

In all seriousness, you saw a crappy little shop, noticed an opportunity to mess with someone for barely any reason, and then you ran home to gloat about it on an internet forum. It's not even worth pointing out how pathetic that is. That's the best contribution you could make to the thread count of this forum? You went to ANOTHER CONTINENT with a camera, and all you have to show for it is a picture of a tshirt? Give ME a break.

But way to go, dude. You totally nailed it to that guy; he'll think twice before misguidedly asking people not to take pictures of his stock again.

Way to sock it to the man!

 

[London Headshots]

You are aware that the vast majority of the membership of TP are just that though Amateur

Also you suggested that he was trying to protect his livelihood, I gave a couple of interpretations on how he is maybe trying to do that

There's a difference between an amateur photographer and an amateur photographer. One is said with reverence, and the other has a bit of stank attached.

 

[MWHCVT]

You sell tshirts, so you know as much about this guys business as I do about a guy on a street corner selling licensed postcards of other people's photography. ie. nothing.

In all seriousness, you saw a crappy little shop, noticed an opportunity to mess with someone for barely any reason, and then you ran home to gloat about it on an internet forum. It's not even worth pointing out how pathetic that is. That's the best contribution you could make to the thread count of this forum? You went to ANOTHER CONTINENT with a camera, and all you have to show for it is a picture of a tshirt? Give ME a break.

But way to go, dude. You totally nailed it to that guy; he'll think twice before misguidedly asking people not to take pictures of his stock again.

Way to sock it to the man!

Or to look at it from another angle, the OP saw what looked like an interesting/funny photo opportunity and took it

There's a difference between an amateur photographer and an amateur photographer. One is said with reverence, and the other has a bit of stank attached.

Well I guess you didn't do a very professional job of putting your emphasis across then did you :shrug:

 

[specialman]

So did we come to a conclusion about the original question or are some of you just here for the fight? I can't tell due to all the posturing and chest-puffing....

 

[MWHCVT]

So did we come to a conclusion about the original question or are some of you just here for the fight? I can't tell due to all the posturing and chest-puffing....

My excuse is I'm bored

But as to the original question, I don't think that the the stall holder can stop you taking the photo, but there is noting stopping him putting the sign up though I very much doubt the copyright is his to protect

Matt

 

[big soft moose]

My excuse is I'm bored

My excuse is that I've been drinking

On the OP I pretty much concur with Matt - the copyright definitely isnt his to protect (see my post higher up about who has the Bruce lee copyright) and even if he really is licenced (which I somehow doubt) he'd have a hard time demonstrating that his design was so unique it needed that degree of protection.

I suspect the sign is because he's got ****ed off with people photographing his shirts without buying anything

 

[Splog]

I suspect that many here are missing the point! :shake: ...... It's just a clever selling point i.e. WOW! these shirts must be really special if we can't even take a photo of them and WOW! He's the only one allowed to sell them! ..... :bonk:

 

[sdoucet]

I have a Anselm Adams photo at home and I paid $25 I purchased it at the state park. We can also buy a Picasso, beattles poster, old coca cola posters, old movies poster etc.... all for $25 why? ?? Not because the state park souvenir shop or all the stores in the big malls are crooks, it's because you can sell copies of these things after 30 years. The copyright is expired. Simple. The T-shirt Guy is not a crook. Just someone making a request. Respecting it is the decision of the person with the camera.

 

[sdoucet]

If the had to pay copyright, we could not buy a Anselm Adams copy for $ 25

 

[big soft moose]

I have a Anselm Adams photo at home and I paid $25 I purchased it at the state park. We can also buy a Picasso, beattles poster, old coca cola posters, old movies poster etc.... all for $25 why? ?? Not because the state park souvenir shop or all the stores in the big malls are crooks, it's because you can sell copies of these things after 30 years. The copyright is expired. Simple. The T-shirt Guy is not a crook. Just someone making a request. Respecting it is the decision of the person with the camera.

No the reason you can buy those things is because (most of the time with a legit outlet) the image is licenced by the copyright holder usually in return for a fee (do you honestly think Coke don't own the copyright to their brand ... try exploiting it without permission and see what happens )

In case you missed it earlier as I said google shows us 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

Ergo the copyright has not expired its owned by concord moon LP :bang: so either T shirt guy has ripped the image off without permission , or he's been licenced by them - either way he doesnt own the copyright

incidentally the length of copyright protection varies from country to country in the Uk its the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years for printed works including photos , and 50 years from release for movies and computer generated artworks , In the US it is the life of the copyright holder or 70 years , or 120 years whichever is longer (since the 1998 copyright extension act). In canada it is the lifetime of the creator plus 50 years

theres a useful more or less exhaustive list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length from which you will see there is no country in the world that has a copyright expiry time of thirty years (france has the lifetime of the creator plus thirty years if the creator dies while on active service).

As i said earlier if you are going to hold forth on copyright it helps to know what you are talking about - or failing that to do some research

 

[DemiLion]

If the had to pay copyright, we could not buy a Anselm Adams copy for $ 25

I hate to have to inform such a knowledgable American such as yourself that you are wrong but...


It's Ansel Adams, and the copyright on his work still subsists - even if the ROD was 30 years (which it isn't).

Why don't you potter back to photo net if you were happy there? There's a good chap!

 

[On the Huh]

I suspect that many here are missing the point! :shake: ...... It's just a clever selling point i.e. WOW! these shirts must be really special if we can't even take a photo of them and WOW! He's the only one allowed to sell them! ..... :bonk:

Yep. Could well be a marketing ploy.

 

[HMansfield]

As the images on that particular T-shirt are publicity stills from Enter The Dragon, would copyright not still be owned by Warner Bros?

 

[ZoneV]

I have a Anselm Adams photo at home and I paid $25 I purchased it at the state park. We can also buy a Picasso, beattles poster, old coca cola posters, old movies poster etc.... all for $25 why? ?? Not because the state park souvenir shop or all the stores in the big malls are crooks, it's because you can sell copies of these things after 30 years. The copyright is expired. Simple. The T-shirt Guy is not a crook. Just someone making a request. Respecting it is the decision of the person with the camera.

If the had to pay copyright, we could not buy a Anselm Adams copy for $ 25

"Publishing rights for most of Adams's photographs are now handled by the trustees of The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust."

Ansel Adams' Wiki.

 

[On the Huh]

Why don't you potter back to photo net if you were happy there? There's a good chap!

Chap? Is Stephane French for Stephen or Stephenie? Not Sure. :shrug:
But yes, agree, a good idea to go back to photo.net.

 

[big soft moose]

As the images on that particular T-shirt are publicity stills from Enter The Dragon, would copyright not still be owned by Warner Bros?

I'd guess that would depend on whatever deal was done between concord moon and warner bros at the time - its possible that concord moon own the copyright and licenced them to Warner Bros

and its equally possible that warner bros own the copyright, but Concord moon own the rights to future exploitation of Bruce lees image so a T shirt printer might require permision from both

 

[TheBigYin]

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.

We don't allow "goodbye posts" - but I think it'd be fair to say that their loss is our gain. Goodbye.

 

[Byker28i]

I'd be surprised if he had permission to use the camper and/or it's shape (some try to get around IP usage by removing the badges from the vehicle) from vw, they recently revoked all rights/licencing to use the camper to all of the large clothing companies and chased down those using their IP without permission.

Interesting - cheers. Ine of the pictures I remember was of Campers as a tube train and a quick google shows it for sale on Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canvas-Print-Camper-Camden-Station/dp/B0045R0ACM

 

[Byker28i]

Chap? Is Stephane French for Stephen or Stephenie? Not Sure. :shrug:
But yes, agree, a good idea to go back to photo.net.

Can I just add - to no-one in particular, that we are supposed to be a friendly forum.
Now we can have differences of opinions, I think this person was pointed out as being wrong on several accounts (but being american probably doesn't accept they're wrong?), but really there's no call to dismiss someone.

We'll never change someone's thinking if all we say is goodbye. Personally I'd like to suggest we say, stick around, you may learn something.

Here endeth the thought for today

Edit: Also - there's other photographers forums?

 

[neil_g]

Interesting - cheers. Ine of the pictures I remember was of Campers as a tube train and a quick google shows it for sale on Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canvas-Print-Camper-Camden-Station/dp/B0045R0ACM

yeah thatll definately get him in bother if/when they decide to chase it up. it may be theyve chosen to let small time usage slide a little?

im a little limited to what i can say but i know at one point last year vw were saying all items with vw IP (e.g. campers and beetles etc) had to be removed from shops with immediate effect or court action would follow, some business had to really plead with them to be able to sale remaining stock sat in warehouses.. they wouldnt even accept a lot of money to continue licencing.

 

[Lindsay D]

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. .

That doesn't sound quite right. I joined Photo.net in 2008 as a paid subscriber and I allowed my paid subscription to lapse in 2010 - this makes no practical difference to anything and you just carry on using and contributing to the site as normal, but without the 'paid subscriber' icon next to your name. My account and profile remain the same, ditto my posting history - the account itself doesn't ever expire. So I don't really know what sdoucet is saying.

Unless of course photo.net bans you, then your account is over and you would have to go back and start over again under a different name.

 

[bass_junkie83]

Back in the early days of facebook, I had one of my photos removed for copyright infringement because it showed me wearing a hoody with a bands name/logo across it.
The photo was even of me at a gig for that band!

 

[big soft moose]

Unless of course photo.net bans you, then your account is over and you would have to go back and start over again under a different name.

yeah strange that

 

[DazJW]

Back in the early days of facebook, I had one of my photos removed for copyright infringement because it showed me wearing a hoody with a bands name/logo across it.
The photo was even of me at a gig for that band!

I would have thought it was more to do with the place the photo was taken than what you were wearing, they're tight on rights for gigs.

 

[bass_junkie83]

No, although that's where it was taken, it wasn't clear from that photo.
The reason they gave was because of the logo.

 

[bbb]

yeah thatll definately get him in bother if/when they decide to chase it up. it may be theyve chosen to let small time usage slide a little?

im a little limited to what i can say but i know at one point last year vw were saying all items with vw IP (e.g. campers and beetles etc) had to be removed from shops with immediate effect or court action would follow, some business had to really plead with them to be able to sale remaining stock sat in warehouses.. they wouldnt even accept a lot of money to continue licencing.

Plus TFL don't give out licences to use the roundel in works cheaply either :nono:

 

[Flash In The Pan]

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.

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

The usual reason for such a request is down to the seller of unlicensed goods not wanting to get done for copyright theft.

If you want to test the theory in the UK, find a local market with someone selling knock-off designer gear and try taking a pic of their stall

 

[On the Huh]

Can I just add - to no-one in particular, that we are supposed to be a friendly forum.Now we can have differences of opinions, I think this person was pointed out as being wrong on several accounts (but being american probably doesn't accept they're wrong?), but really there's no call to dismiss someone.

We'll never change someone's thinking if all we say is goodbye. Personally I'd like to suggest we say, stick around, you may learn something.

Here endeth the thought for today

Edit: Also - there's other photographers forums?

You can, but as you quoted a post from me, I feel I'm being picked on and you are referring to me.



Seriously though, I have been a fairly friendly forum member, but there are at least one or two on here just lately who just post for no other reason than to argue. I suppose because of that I may have been a little over zealous to keep another argumentive troll at bay, but like you I want TP to keep it's most friendly forum reputation.

(but being american probably doesn't accept they're wrong?)

Good way to make freinds from across the pond to feel welcome. :shrug: I take people as I find them, even those on a forum such as this. I can , like you and anyone else on here make a mistake, mis-read something, or say something I later regret, but I don't tar everyone from a certain continent with the same brush.

Now, I feel I'm being argumentive, to which I apologise, I'm not meaning to be, just want to put my POV accross in a friendly way, so no hard feelings.

Here endeth my thought for today. :razz:

 

[swanseamale47]

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



The best way to avoid problems is to know what you are talking about.

Me too?

 

[simonblue]

The usual reason for such a request is down to the seller of unlicensed goods not wanting to get done for copyright theft.

If you want to test the theory in the UK, find a local market with someone selling knock-off designer gear and try taking a pic of their stall

Yep had that a few times

 

[big soft moose]

Me too?

no, i didnt think you were leaving

 

[TheBigYin]

Me too?

He did leave, at least for a while... which reminds me, I've some H&S paperwork to complete for after using the 'hammer