...written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner...

Perhaps farmers consider themselves artisans building a picturesque scene and are tired of photographers taking snapshots of their artwork and stealing the profits. Perhaps.

Some building owners feel they own the copyright to the building's appearance as well.

...just a thought off the reservation

photo212grapher wrote:
Some building owners feel they own the copyright to the building's appearance as well.

Some do, if I'm not mistaken.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com | www.mplsfashion.com

QuaeVide wrote:
Cops are photographed mistreating citizens - make it a crime to photograph cops.

Farmers are photographed mistreating animals - make it a crime to photograph farmers.

Next?

+1

It;s about hiding not only animal cruelty, but hiding the disgusting images from the public so they can keep buying el Pollio Loco and Big Macs without seeing the cronically sick animals their food comes from.

Do a search for Meet your Meat to see what they want to hide.

This is not about the honest small farmer.

Also see Food Inc.

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
There are images of farms that have made photographers $1000's of dollars and the farmer never received a dime.

I believe some buildings erected after a certain date are now covered by copyright.

Not sure when this went into effect or if it is only in Oregon.

The University of Oregon wants to be paid for every image of new buildings and the "O" if it is sold.

Our camera club ran into this problem with Autzen Stadium with out publicity calender.

There is a tree in Montery that is copyrighted and it went to court with ASMP suing.

This bill has nothing to do with © claims or anything like that. This bill is to protect the agi business from being caught violating animal safety and health regulations.

Hoodlum wrote:

This bill has nothing to do with © claims or anything like that. This bill is to protect the agi business from being caught violating animal safety and health regulations.

I know but this is being discussed elsewhere.

In my state, there is a move to require photographers to pay a fee to photograph on public land like a hunting license and the funds to be used to improve photosites - like building blinds. and paths.

Fred Greissing wrote:

QuaeVide wrote:
Cops are photographed mistreating citizens - make it a crime to photograph cops.

Farmers are photographed mistreating animals - make it a crime to photograph farmers.

Next?

Fred Greissing wrote:
+1

It;s about hiding not only animal cruelty, but hiding the disgusting images from the public so they can keep buying el Pollio Loco and Big Macs without seeing the cronically sick animals their food comes from.

Do a search for Meet your Meat to see what they want to hide.

This is not about the honest small farmer.

Also see Food Inc.

Maybe it's time we ban reporters in foreign countries from documenting various events... I think Iran and China, among others, are guilty of suppressing the press.  Food Inc was a good documentary.  Opened my eyes up quite a bit.

photo212grapher wrote:
...Some building owners feel they own the copyright to the building's appearance as well.

...

In actuality, the archietct who designed the building owns the copyright of the design and thus the image... Even if the owner pays for designing it ... just like an oil painting...even if a patron pays to buy the actual physical painting and hangs it in their home....the image is still the copyrighted property of the artist....so it is with buildings and architects.

QuaeVide wrote:
Cops are photographed mistreating citizens - make it a crime to photograph cops.

Farmers are photographed mistreating animals - make it a crime to photograph farmers.

Next?

It is a crime to photograph a policeman in Maryland.

Fred Greissing wrote:

+1

It;s about hiding not only animal cruelty, but hiding the disgusting images from the public so they can keep buying el Pollio Loco and Big Macs without seeing the cronically sick animals their food comes from.

Do a search for Meet your Meat to see what they want to hide.

This is not about the honest small farmer.

Also see Food Inc.

but I like my growth hormone induced, cronically sick beef

WCR3 wrote:
It's a long way from introducing a bill to having it pass both houses and then be signed into law by the governor. Lots of silly stuff gets introduced. On the other hand, we have veggie libel laws in a number of states. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws. So something like this could happen.

Traditionally, photographers have been able to take photographs of anything visible from public spaces like roads, sidewalks and parks. Whether or not they can use them, e.g. sell or publish them, is another story. Property owners have their own set of rights. If the bill passes into law, photographers in Florida should consult their lawyers before planning a shoot on a farm or where the farm can be seen unless they have written permission of the landowner or his or her authorized representative.

This is about it. Dont trespass.

Ezhini wrote:
In actuality, the archietct who designed the building owns the copyright of the design and thus the image... Even if the owner pays for designing it ... just like an oil painting...even if a patron pays to buy the actual physical painting and hangs it in their home....the image is still the copyrighted property of the artist....so it is with buildings and architects.

Can you show me the law that says that? I find it hard to believe that the copyright of every photograph of a structure belongs not to the photographer, but to the architect.

Lorin Edmonds wrote:

I know but this is being discussed elsewhere.

In my state, there is a move to require photographers to pay a fee to photograph on public land like a hunting license and the funds to be used to improve photosites - like building blinds. and paths.

That's disgusting. Just one more freedom of this once free country being eroded away.

Digitoxin wrote:
The bill is likely unconstitutional and the politician sponsoring it likely knows that.

I don't live in Florida but I will now do what I usually do in cases like this....

I will write this fool and tell him how I feel.  I will also tell him that while I can't vote for him in Florida, I can send donations to anyone who runs against him.  I have done so in the past and will likely do so in this case too.

Damn fool pandering to the ag lobby.

Great idea. I do this as well and encourage all to consider this. This appears to be another example of the many bills being put forth and laws being enacted since the last election cycle that infringe on all of our rights.

Anyone think this doesn't affect you because you don't shoot on farms in Florida? The thing is if this passes, what is next? Whatever and where ever you shoot, any of our favorite subjects/locations could be next. This movement to strip us of our rights needs to be stopped now!

dave wright phx wrote:

Can you show me the law that says that? I find it hard to believe that the copyright of every photograph of a structure belongs not to the photographer, but to the architect.

The specifics can be found in the same place you find specifics regarding copyright of photos, on the government's website. I don't remember them myself, but I seem to recall that for the most part the copyright is of the design. This copyright is intended to prevent someone from building an identical property without the permission or payment to the architect who designed it originally and would similarly cover slight changes that clearly are intended to circumvent copyright infringement (such as just shuffling a couple rooms around). I don't know that the law extends to the actual physical appearance in a photograph, so I can't say one way or the other with certainty if it's in violation or not. If I remember right, I didn't actually find a clear answer to that question. I can say that when I get hired to produce architectural work for clients, I am specific in informing them that they need to investigate the potential for infringement before publishing the images and that I make no guarantees one way or the other.

afplcc wrote:
I think the bill is a bad idea but what's being reported about it is a bit of a distortion.  The purpose of the bill is to protect agra-business...they don't want you photographing plants, equipment or orchard/farm layout that might reveal how they're growing stuff.

If that's the case, put a wall around it.

dave wright phx wrote:
Can you show me the law that says that? I find it hard to believe that the copyright of every photograph of a structure belongs not to the photographer, but to the architect.

Does copyright protect architecture?

Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/1246/BillText/Filed/HTML wrote:
(1) A person who enters onto a farm or other
   11  property where legitimate agriculture operations are being
   12  conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an
   13  authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the
   14  first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
   15  or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.

Merely entering onto a farm to ask for directions would be a felony.