Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Very interesting that you mention this. I've wondered about architecture.....and even storefronts. A few years back I did a few portrait sessions in and around a upscale shopping downtown mall. Inside is a huge skylit courtyard and a beautiful fountain. It's a great setting with wonderful diffuse natural light. I photographed there Saturday morning. Very few people around. The courtyard was one of three locations within a two block area. I'd shoot a dozen or so photographs at location. I was in and out of the mall in 10 minutes or less. (IOW, this wasn't anything elaborate, not did it intefere with anything). One morning a guard came up to me and stopped me from shooting. He claimed that all the storefronts -- window displays, etc. -- were protected under intellectual property laws. He said it was unlawful for me to photograph them even if they were in the background. I thought that was an odd reason to stop me. Perhaps he didn't want to say that they don't allow photographs to be taken in the mall. Tourists shoot away there all the time. It's a popular spot. I called ahead to get permission the next time. The mall's property management people told me no. They didn't gave me a reason. I've always been curious. Was it because they didn't want any type of commercial photography in the mall? I can understand that. Was it an intellectual property issue? Perhaps it was both, and then some. What I find interesting is that the guard ignored me the times I used my Leicas. He stopped me when I used my Hasselblad. Dave >>It is interesting to note that a relatively recent change in U.S. copyright law _explicitly_ prohibits architects from suing photographers for taking (and selling) pictures of their buildings. In other words, in the U.S., it is no longer possible for an architect to sue a photographer for copyright infringement because the photographer takes a picture of a building the architect designed without the architect's authorization and then sells it. The copyright law now explicitly states that this is _not_ infringement.<<