Does that mean that I wouldn't be able to legally sell copies of that photo
without getting some kind of permission from the people who are in charge of
the Opera House?
-A
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> The other thing is that the Opera House is highly protected by trademark
> restrictions.
>
>
>
That's what I assumed also, but assumptions are often wrong. =0(
I'll have a browse of that property release thread...
-A
"Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF7CAAF.7070201@no-spam
> hehe we recently had a discussion about this under the thread 'model and
> property releases'.
>
> As far as I could gather, you are free to use a shot if you take it
> whilst standing in a public place.
>
Thanks, the lights did that all by themselves, I wasn't using any filters.
-A
"woodsie" <none@no-spam> wrote in message
news:none-2406031519370001@no-spam
>
> looks nice!. are they lights creating the star effect or did u add them in
> with Pshop?
"Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF7CAAF.7070201@no-spam
> hehe we recently had a discussion about this under the thread 'model and
> property releases'.
>
> As far as I could gather, you are free to use a shot if you take it
> whilst standing in a public place.
The Sydney Opera House Trust.
1) Does not give permission
2) Does prosecute any person selling photos without permission.
Dont listen to any of the blah blah about the public right.
cite
Miro wrote:
> "Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF7CAAF.7070201@no-spam
>
>>hehe we recently had a discussion about this under the thread 'model and
>>property releases'.
>>
>>As far as I could gather, you are free to use a shot if you take it
>>whilst standing in a public place.
>
>
> The Sydney Opera House Trust.
>
> 1) Does not give permission
> 2) Does prosecute any person selling photos without permission.
>
> Dont listen to any of the blah blah about the public right.
>
>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:17:16 +1000
in article TGPJa.581$g_1.3920@no-spam Admiral at
kdick@no-spam wrote on 24/6/03 1:36 PM:
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam
>>
>> The other thing is that the Opera House is highly protected by trademark
>> restrictions.
>
> Does that mean that I wouldn't be able to legally sell copies of that photo
> without getting some kind of permission from the people who are in charge of
> the Opera House?
>
> -A
Considering we had a thread on this last week under "property and model
release", your query made me wonder whether you could sell copies. Perhaps
the SOH falls into some sort of "special" catagory, seeing as it has "Aust
icon" status, for want of better words??
So, I have made enquiries at the SOH legal/business development dept. I
have received an interesting reply, but have asked for clarification on a
couple of things, as well as permission to post their reply here, if anyone
is interested that is.
N
NS wrote:
>
> in article TGPJa.581$g_1.3920@no-spam Admiral at
> kdick@no-spam wrote on 24/6/03 1:36 PM:
>
> > " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam
> >>
> >> The other thing is that the Opera House is highly protected by trademark
> >> restrictions.
> >
> > Does that mean that I wouldn't be able to legally sell copies of that photo
> > without getting some kind of permission from the people who are in charge of
> > the Opera House?
> >
> > -A
>
> Considering we had a thread on this last week under "property and model
> release", your query made me wonder whether you could sell copies. Perhaps
> the SOH falls into some sort of "special" catagory, seeing as it has "Aust
> icon" status, for want of better words??
> So, I have made enquiries at the SOH legal/business development dept. I
> have received an interesting reply, but have asked for clarification on a
> couple of things, as well as permission to post their reply here, if anyone
> is interested that is.
> N
Har they must wonder what's going on, I spoke with the Legal Dept too.
Rob
They may or may not give permission, but it is certainly illegal to sell
photographs (or anything else) on the premesis.
As far as selling photographs OF the house, well, unless there are
seperate laws that have been passed especially for the Opera House
Trust, other than the Sydney Opera House Trust By-laws, then you can
take pictures of it if you are on public property not owned by the opera
house.
Ubiquitous wrote:
> But you just said "The Sydney Opera House Trust 1> Does not give
> permission"
>
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3ef8b0ee$0$26634$afc38c87@no-spam
>
>>
>> Those are all giving kickback to the Opera House.
>>
>>
>> "Admiral" <kdick@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:QQ0Ka.1472$g_1.13026@no-spam
>>
>>> So what's the deal with the whole stack of galleries around
>>> Circular
>>> and Darling Harbour that sell such photos?
>>>
>>> -A
Heh, and I was going to call them this afternoon. =0)
It would be great if you could post whatever info they give you NS, just to
see where I stand.
-A
"Rob" <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF8FC4A.FBC42AF1@no-spam
>
> Har they must wonder what's going on, I spoke with the Legal Dept too.
>
> Rob
> As far as selling photographs OF the house, well, unless there are
> seperate laws that have been passed especially for the Opera House
> Trust, other than the Sydney Opera House Trust By-laws, then you can
> take pictures of it if you are on public property not owned by the opera
> house.
Why speculate ...... just phone them up and ask. I know what the answer is
becuase I remember the day they came out and said it was not permitted.
In article <3EF8FC4A.FBC42AF1@no-spam>,
Rob <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > Considering we had a thread on this last week under "property and model
> > release", your query made me wonder whether you could sell copies. Perhaps
> > the SOH falls into some sort of "special" catagory, seeing as it has "Aust
> > icon" status, for want of better words??
> > So, I have made enquiries at the SOH legal/business development dept. I
> > have received an interesting reply, but have asked for clarification on a
> > couple of things, as well as permission to post their reply here, if anyone
> > is interested that is.
> > N
>
> Har they must wonder what's going on, I spoke with the Legal Dept too.
>
> Rob
Well, it will be interesting to compare notes in that case. Would you
mind sharing who you spoke to and what did they tell you? From the
replies I received, I don't think they really know either!
Here is part of the 1st reply I received:
> There are no restrictions on photographing the building, see Section 66 of
> the Copyright Act. It is not possible to copyright a building, but copyright
> does subsist in the design and plans.
>
> There are no restrictions regarding personal usage of photos of the Opera
> House. Commercial usage brings into play issues and laws
> quite separate from copyright.
>
> The Sydney Opera House Trust administer the SOH and surrounding property.
> Any and all commercial activity must be carried out with the express
> permission of the Trust. Commercial photographers (or where the photos are
> destined for a commercial purpose) must make application to conduct photos
> shoots on the SOH property. Each application is assessed on its own merits
> and access may or may not be granted and fees may apply.
I then asked her which specific issues & laws come into play, whether
these have been tested in court, whether it is only on the SOH property
that they can administer such laws, and how much control they have over
photos of the SOH taken from another place. Also asked if these laws
were valid only if the SOH was the focal point of the photo.
Her reply was unfortunately most unsatisfactory, and amounted to "trade
practices mumble mumble don't know mumble go see a lawyer."
Here is her 2nd reply:
> The Trust administers the SOH property, it does not have regulate access to
> property elsewhere (although the local council or other organisation might).
>
> Trade Practices legislation may come into play in terms of passing-off or
> false or misleading conduct, depending on the usage or application.
>
> You are probably best to seek legal advice in relation to this issue if you
> need any more detailed information or plan to move forward with commercial
> application of photography. The information I have provided is only a
> general guide.
So, make what you will of that I guess. To me, it would seem that they
do have some control over photos taken ON their property for commercial
purposes, or at least like to give the impression that they do.
Apparently no control of photos taken of the SOH from anywhere else,
although they want us to think that they do. But they are not really
sure themselves, when pushed for an answer. Acts and laws are always
open to interpretation, at least until precedents are set, and it would
appear none have been regarding this.
N
Narelle wrote:
> > Har they must wonder what's going on, I spoke with the Legal Dept too.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Well, it will be interesting to compare notes in that case. Would you
> mind sharing who you spoke to and what did they tell you? From the
> replies I received, I don't think they really know either!
Seems so.
When I questioned them regarding copyright or rights pertaining to a
commercial poster which was shot outside the grounds of the SOH Property
but which contained an image of the Sydney Opera House I received the
following:
"Dear Rob,
Depending on the application if the usage suggested a connection between
the good or product being advertised and the SOH, where no such
connection or relationship exists, then it might be problematic as it
would be deceptive and misleading.
Seraf..."
Rob
Unfortunately my photo was taken on the damn steps... I don't think i'm
going to be able to swing selling it. =0(
Good to see that they're not saying "NO PHOTOS" though, i'll just have to
try and get out of the area they consider "their" property next time I
shoot. Which makes me wonder, where exactly are their borders? I think I may
try to set up a meeting with one of their people for some more in depth
questions.
-A
"Rob" <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF921FF.13469F7C@no-spam
>
> "Dear Rob,
>
> Depending on the application if the usage suggested a connection between
> the good or product being advertised and the SOH, where no such
> connection or relationship exists, then it might be problematic as it
> would be deceptive and misleading.
>
> Seraf..."
>
> Rob
You are allowed to sell pictures of the building as long as you took
them from outside their 'premises'. I dont know how far their premises
extend, but the steps are probably counted!!
Admiral wrote:
> Unfortunately my photo was taken on the damn steps... I don't think i'm
> going to be able to swing selling it. =0(
>
> Good to see that they're not saying "NO PHOTOS" though, i'll just have to
> try and get out of the area they consider "their" property next time I
> shoot. Which makes me wonder, where exactly are their borders? I think I may
> try to set up a meeting with one of their people for some more in depth
> questions.
>
They dont have the right to say "no photos"!
> "Rob" <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF921FF.13469F7C@no-spam
>
>>"Dear Rob,
>>
>>Depending on the application if the usage suggested a connection between
>>the good or product being advertised and the SOH, where no such
>>connection or relationship exists, then it might be problematic as it
>>would be deceptive and misleading.
>>
>>Seraf..."
>>
>>Rob
Narelle wrote:
>>>Considering we had a thread on this last week under "property and model
>>>release", your query made me wonder whether you could sell copies. Perhaps
>>>the SOH falls into some sort of "special" catagory, seeing as it has "Aust
>>>icon" status, for want of better words??
>>>So, I have made enquiries at the SOH legal/business development dept. I
>>>have received an interesting reply, but have asked for clarification on a
>>>couple of things, as well as permission to post their reply here, if anyone
>>>is interested that is.
>>
>>Har they must wonder what's going on, I spoke with the Legal Dept too.
>>
>
> Well, it will be interesting to compare notes in that case. Would you
> mind sharing who you spoke to and what did they tell you? From the
> replies I received, I don't think they really know either!
> Here is part of the 1st reply I received:
>
>>There are no restrictions on photographing the building, see Section 66 of
>>the Copyright Act. It is not possible to copyright a building, but copyright
>>does subsist in the design and plans.
>>
>>There are no restrictions regarding personal usage of photos of the Opera
>>House. Commercial usage brings into play issues and laws
>>quite separate from copyright.
>>
>>The Sydney Opera House Trust administer the SOH and surrounding property.
>>Any and all commercial activity must be carried out with the express
>>permission of the Trust. Commercial photographers (or where the photos are
>>destined for a commercial purpose) must make application to conduct photos
>>shoots on the SOH property. Each application is assessed on its own merits
>>and access may or may not be granted and fees may apply.
Yes - this is right. Not the wording 'the ... property', 'access may be
granted', 'on the SOH property'. It's only on THEIR property that all
this stuff applies.
>
> I then asked her which specific issues & laws come into play, whether
> these have been tested in court, whether it is only on the SOH property
> that they can administer such laws, and how much control they have over
> photos of the SOH taken from another place. Also asked if these laws
> were valid only if the SOH was the focal point of the photo.
> Her reply was unfortunately most unsatisfactory, and amounted to "trade
> practices mumble mumble don't know mumble go see a lawyer."
> Here is her 2nd reply:
>
Yes, there are specific by-laws associated with the SOH trust. It's
called, strangely, the "SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE TRUST BYLAW, 1998" and the
only part that stipulates requirements of photographers is this, from
Section 10:
A person must not do any of the following on the Opera House premises:
(c) take photographs or films, or operate a video recorder,
for commercialpurposes,
(I snipped items a, b and d, because they were not relevant).
So, as it states in the actuall by-laws, it's only photography on their
premises that is forbidden by law. They cant regulate what you do
outside their premises!
>>The Trust administers the SOH property, it does not have regulate access to
>>property elsewhere (although the local council or other organisation might).
Yes, this is completely correct.
>>Trade Practices legislation may come into play in terms of passing-off or
>>false or misleading conduct, depending on the usage or application.
Again, this is correct. This was dealt with in part of the 'model and
property releases' thread we mentioned earlier. Of course, you can't
misrepresent anything in your photos. I.e. over in aus.law someone used
the example something along the lines of this: A photographer takes a
snap of the outside of someone's house from the street - perfectly
legal. But if it was used commercially with a caption indicating that
the people that lived within were criminals, then this is of course
unacceptable.
>>You are probably best to seek legal advice in relation to this issue if you
>>need any more detailed information or plan to move forward with commercial
>>application of photography. The information I have provided is only a
>>general guide.
>
> So, make what you will of that I guess. To me, it would seem that they
> do have some control over photos taken ON their property for commercial
> purposes, or at least like to give the impression that they do.
> Apparently no control of photos taken of the SOH from anywhere else,
> although they want us to think that they do.
Yes, I think this is the crux of it - they want you to either pay them
royalties or licence their own shots which, I have no doubt, are
available from their publicity department.
> But they are not really
> sure themselves, when pushed for an answer. Acts and laws are always
> open to interpretation, at least until precedents are set, and it would
> appear none have been regarding this.
> > So, make what you will of that I guess. To me, it would seem that they
> > do have some control over photos taken ON their property for commercial
> > purposes, or at least like to give the impression that they do.
> > Apparently no control of photos taken of the SOH from anywhere else,
> > although they want us to think that they do.
>
> Yes, I think this is the crux of it - they want you to either pay them
> royalties or licence their own shots which, I have no doubt, are
> available from their publicity department.
They regulat the taking of commercial photographs _on_ SOH property.
You can stand outside SOH property & take all the shots you want.
NSW National Parks have the same system in place - you need a permit to conduct
commercial photography in National Parks, however it's more aimed at photo shoots -
models, weddings, etc than the lone landscape photographer. Still, if I venture
into a national park I generally get a permit.
NSW State Forests, on the other hand, are _much_ more friendly. Go take what you
want, when you want - just be responsible.
I'll stop there, or I'll get into my rant about the
unwashed-rampant-greeny-doogooders of National Parks, compared to the sensible &
sustainable management of state forests...
ahennell wrote:
>>>So, make what you will of that I guess. To me, it would seem that they
>>>do have some control over photos taken ON their property for commercial
>>>purposes, or at least like to give the impression that they do.
>>>Apparently no control of photos taken of the SOH from anywhere else,
>>>although they want us to think that they do.
>>
>>Yes, I think this is the crux of it - they want you to either pay them
>>royalties or licence their own shots which, I have no doubt, are
>>available from their publicity department.
>
> They regulat the taking of commercial photographs _on_ SOH property.
> You can stand outside SOH property & take all the shots you want.
>
Yup, that's exactly what I pointed out! The statement above refers to
the fact that they "like to give the impression that they do" have some
control over commercial photographs taken off SOH property. They want
people to think that, so that you'll buy/licence _their_ pictures! THere
could be no way that their legal people would not know about it. If they
dont, then they should get new ones!
> NSW National Parks have the same system in place - you need a permit to conduct
> commercial photography in National Parks, however it's more aimed at photo shoots -
> models, weddings, etc than the lone landscape photographer. Still, if I venture
> into a national park I generally get a permit.
>
> NSW State Forests, on the other hand, are _much_ more friendly. Go take what you
> want, when you want - just be responsible.
>
> I'll stop there, or I'll get into my rant about the
> unwashed-rampant-greeny-doogooders of National Parks, compared to the sensible &
> sustainable management of state forests...
>
Yeah, also the same with the Zoo and the Healesville Sanctuary etc.
I think you got the first part right but there is another part to it. All
photographs of the opera house with the harbour bridge are subject to
trademark.
The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
So that rules out most photos from blues point, cremorne, lady macquarie
chair and several other prime locations.
There are many restrictions.
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote:
> I think you got the first part right but there is another part to it. All
> photographs of the opera house with the harbour bridge are subject to
> trademark.
>
> The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
Allow me to be the first to ask "Who's Trademark?"
> So that rules out most photos from blues point, cremorne, lady macquarie
> chair and several other prime locations.
>
> There are many restrictions.
Mmmm-kaay.
KC
In article <3ef95711$0$26633$afc38c87@no-spam>, " says...
>
>I think you got the first part right but there is another part to it. All
>photographs of the opera house with the harbour bridge are subject to
>trademark.
>
>The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
>
>So that rules out most photos from blues point, cremorne, lady macquarie
>chair and several other prime locations.
>
>There are many restrictions.
>
>
The word "bullshit" springs to mind. That is easily confirmed by looking at the
trademark database on www.ipaustralia.gov.au
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:16:30 +1000, in
<3EF94C4E.1090909@no-spam>, Scott Coutts
<scott.coutts@no-spam> said:
>Yeah, also the same with the Zoo and the Healesville Sanctuary etc.
Speaking of which, what is the Melbourne Zoos policy about photography?
I'm planning on taking a friend who's learning photography, & I wouldn't
mind taking some photos myself. (She'll be using my Powershot, & I'll be
taking the 10D & too many bloody lenses. ;)
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:16:30 +1000, in
<3EF94C4E.1090909@no-spam>, Scott Coutts
<scott.coutts@no-spam> said:
>Yeah, also the same with the Zoo and the Healesville Sanctuary etc.
Speaking of which, what is the Melbourne Zoos policy about photography?
I'm planning on taking a friend who's learning photography, & I wouldn't
mind taking some photos myself. (She'll be using my Powershot, & I'll be
taking the 10D & too many bloody lenses. ;)
> You know, I think what they are really refering to here is taking photos
of
> their productions inside the Opera House... Sure, they'd like you to pay
for
> their merchandise too, but I imagine that's not really what this section
is
> aimed at.
>
I can see that a lot of SOH productions are held outdoors.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:16:30 +1000, Scott Coutts
<scott.coutts@no-spam> wrote:
>
>Yeah, also the same with the Zoo and the Healesville Sanctuary etc.
>
At Taronga ?? .. I have been there MANY times, both as a large photo
group and as individuals . wondering around shooting everything that
moves, or sitting WAITING for the exactly correct shot ..... even
maybe a mob of DSLRs shooting off 100 frames a minute (well, almost).
I might be lucky, but have NEVER been approached, even though I have
thought of approaching them about buying photos (both of my behalf and
for others)
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:51:54 GMT, in
<qv2jfvsp80qhlh3rivo999ltjpgkf0ckpj@no-spam>, ChrisMc
<cmcclellau@no-spam> said:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:16:30 +1000, Scott Coutts
><scott.coutts@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yeah, also the same with the Zoo and the Healesville Sanctuary etc.
>>
>
>At Taronga ??
I assumed that he means Melbourne Zoo, as Healesville Sanctuary is in
Victoria, & he has a Melbourne email address.
On 25 Jun 2003 04:52:40 -0700, in <bdc2e801e52@no-spam>, Andrew
Mc <andrew@no-spam> said:
>I've taken quite a few shots there with no problems. Also try the open range zoo
>at Werribee - they seem to encourage it - although I've never been on one, they
>have a "Photography Tour" that I've heard is quite good.
Thanks for the info. I'd never heard of Werribee having a zoo, but it'd
certainly explain the animals painted onto the freeway noise barriers
that I've noticed when driving to Geelong. ;)
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:36:05 +1000, Lionel <nop@no-spam> wrote:
>I assumed that he means Melbourne Zoo, as Healesville Sanctuary is in
>Victoria, & he has a Melbourne email address.
Sorry, it was more a rhetorical question / bad choice of syntax. I
noticed the edu-based email from previous postings.
In article <bdc574$sdd$3@no-spam>, Lionel says...
>
>On 25 Jun 2003 04:52:40 -0700, in <bdc2e801e52@no-spam>, Andrew
>Mc <andrew@no-spam> said:
>
>>I've taken quite a few shots there with no problems. Also try the open range zoo
>>at Werribee - they seem to encourage it - although I've never been on one, they
>>have a "Photography Tour" that I've heard is quite good.
>
>Thanks for the info. I'd never heard of Werribee having a zoo, but it'd
>certainly explain the animals painted onto the freeway noise barriers
>that I've noticed when driving to Geelong. ;)
>
Chuckle, yep, that'd be why. More info at www.zoo.org.au
In article <3ef95711$0$26633$afc38c87@no-spam>,
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote:
> I think you got the first part right but there is another part to it. All
> photographs of the opera house with the harbour bridge are subject to
> trademark.
>
> The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
>
> So that rules out most photos from blues point, cremorne, lady macquarie
> chair and several other prime locations.
>
> There are many restrictions.
>
>
You have snipped too much to know what "first part" you are referring
to, but what trademark are you talking about? Who could register the SOH
& SHB as 1 trademark. Please enlighten us, as there have been a couple
of us who have contacted appropriate departments and the answer is
clearly no one. Is this something else you have heard the day it came
out? Quoting John Laws as an authority in such matters?
What are the many restrictions? Please post your source material, as it
obviously differs from mine, and I would be most interested, as would Ms
Froio of the SOH Legal Dept.
N
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef95711$0$26633$afc38c87@no-spam
> I think you got the first part right but there is another part to it. All
> photographs of the opera house with the harbour bridge are subject to
> trademark.
>
> The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
As the bridge and the OH are owned and managed by different authorities, who
registered the trademark?
> So that rules out most photos from blues point, cremorne, lady macquarie
> chair and several other prime locations.
>
> There are many restrictions.
Cite? One, not many, will do.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
REPLACE ".com" with ".co.uk" to reply
http//www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Yeah, but are we talking photos for personal or commercial use? You can
take as many shots as you want, but you're not allowed to use them for
commercial purposes. There's a sign there that tells you as you come in
the door, and as you leave. If you ask them about it, again, they'll try
to either prohibit it explicitly, charge you royalties, or try to get
you to licence their stock shots. That applies to all of the zoos that
are associated with the Royal Melbourne Zoo. Does werribee come under
that? I think it does.
PS: They certainly do have a photo tour, which I also heard is quite
good, and the melbournites that read this group may agree since that's
where the last 'melbourne aus.photo meet' was held... too bad I got the
day wrong and missed it!!! (:
Andrew Mc wrote:
> In article <bdbnos$f27$0@no-spam>, Lionel says...
>
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:16:30 +1000, in
>><3EF94C4E.1090909@no-spam>, Scott Coutts
>><scott.coutts@no-spam> said:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, also the same with the Zoo and the Healesville Sanctuary etc.
>>
>>Speaking of which, what is the Melbourne Zoos policy about photography?
>>I'm planning on taking a friend who's learning photography, & I wouldn't
>>mind taking some photos myself. (She'll be using my Powershot, & I'll be
>>taking the 10D & too many bloody lenses. ;)
>>
>
>
> I've taken quite a few shots there with no problems. Also try the open range zoo
> at Werribee - they seem to encourage it - although I've never been on one, they
> have a "Photography Tour" that I've heard is quite good.
>
I dont think you can have that as a trademark. Certainly if you use an
illustration of their buidings, or that stylised word 'sydney' then
they'll get you for trademark infringement. There's plenty of cases
listed about that. But I dont think you can trademark the building per-se.
Miro wrote:
> I think you got the first part right but there is another part to it. All
> photographs of the opera house with the harbour bridge are subject to
> trademark.
>
> The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
>
> So that rules out most photos from blues point, cremorne, lady macquarie
> chair and several other prime locations.
>
> There are many restrictions.
>
>
In article <3EFA31BB.5050903@no-spam>, Scott says...
>
>
>>>Yes, there are specific by-laws associated with the SOH trust. It's
>>>called, strangely, the "SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE TRUST BYLAW, 1998" and the
>>>only part that stipulates requirements of photographers is this, from
>>>Section 10:
>>>
>>>A person must not do any of the following on the Opera House premises:
>>>
>>>(c) take photographs or films, or operate a video recorder,
>>> for commercialpurposes,
>>>
>>>
>>>(I snipped items a, b and d, because they were not relevant).
>>>
>>>So, as it states in the actuall by-laws, it's only photography on their
>>>premises that is forbidden by law. They cant regulate what you do
>>>outside their premises!
>>
>> You know, I think what they are really refering to here is taking photos of
>> their productions inside the Opera House... Sure, they'd like you to pay for
>> their merchandise too, but I imagine that's not really what this section is
>> aimed at.
>>
>
>Possibly, but it explicity states 'on SOH premises', so I interpret that
>as anywhere on the land that they own/administer. The other things that
>are forbidded (which were points a, b and d) are:
>
> sell, hire, expose for sale or hire or solicit for
> sale or hire any papers, printed matter, food or
> other goods or services,
>
To get rid of the hotdog sellers and to stop people selling programmes, etc...
> conduct, or cause or assist in the conduct of,
> an amusement, entertainment, instruction or
> performance, whether or not for money or other
> consideration,
>
To get rid of the buskers...
> display or distribute any advertisement, sign,
> bill, poster or other
>
To stop their buildings being caked in crap (including advertisments for rival
theatre companies)...
>I took these as being anywhere on the property
>
>PS: Ensure that you dont amuse or entertain anyone for profit on the
>premesis. Only THEY may amuse. (:
>
>In fact, this is aimed at preventing commercial activities other than
>their own on the property they administer. They do actually have the
>right to forbit you from using the photographs commercially if it's on
>their property, unless you can get them to sign a release (of course,
>they wont, without a fee)
>
Yep, I agree. But it has all to do with people conducting business on their
premises and nothing to do with taking pictures of the Opera House (from
elsewhere) and selling them. Really, they are just following good business
practice, not being the nasty demons that some seem to be portraying them as.
Just need to look at it with a bit of common sense.
Heck, if you really want to get annoyed, look at the regulations that the
various national parks put on photographers, both pro and amateur alike. Ayres
Rock/Uluru is another one.
Oh, one other thing, I think you'll find you have the same right to stop people
taking photographs commercially (or for any other reason) on _your_ property ;).
Andrew Mc wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree. But it has all to do with people conducting business on
> their premises and nothing to do with taking pictures of the Opera
> House (from elsewhere) and selling them. Really, they are just
> following good business practice, not being the nasty demons that
> some seem to be portraying them as. Just need to look at it with a
> bit of common sense.
Yeah, they're definitely protecting their business, and fair enough too.
I certainly dont have a problem with it at all. But I still think the
clause about taking photographs and video is directed at exactly that.
There's no other reason that they should mention the taking of photos.
> Heck, if you really want to get annoyed, look at the regulations that
> the various national parks put on photographers, both pro and amateur
> alike. Ayres Rock/Uluru is another one.
Yeah, but the Uluru regulations are for religious reasons, arent they?
>
> Oh, one other thing, I think you'll find you have the same right to
> stop people taking photographs commercially (or for any other reason)
> on _your_ property ;).
>
Yes, without a doubt. And rightly so (in my opinion)!
Can you tell me please the file size that came from the camera?
JT
"Admiral" <kdick@no-spam> wrote in message
news:%HwJa.358$eG1.5327@no-spam
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/admiral/images/24x36.jpg
>
> Please excuse the shitty quality of the photo, it was just a quick snap to
> illustrate the size of the enlargement.
>
> From normal viewing distance it looks perfect, close up it begins to show
> the limitations of a six megapixel file, and around some of the really
> bright lights in the bottom left you can see a few tiny jpg artifacts, but
> apart from that, HOLY SHIT.
>
> I'm totally impressed.
>
> The original photo was taken with a 10D and Sigma 15-30.
>
> -A
>
>
Some time ago a (almost) client of mine decided to photograph every house in
Brisbane. The idea was to provide Real Estate agents with pictorial
information. The deal would have made me quite wealthy... Until the property
owners objected and were found to have control over the end use of
photographs taken of their property. I suspect the SOH is in a similar
position. Just the same I'd like to see a legal argument in their favor. How
many people photographed the SHB and sold the pics?
JT
"Narelle" <n3310@no-spam> wrote in message news:n3310-
> Well, it will be interesting to compare notes in that case. Would you
> mind sharing who you spoke to and what did they tell you? From the
> replies I received, I don't think they really know either!
> Here is part of the 1st reply I received:
> > There are no restrictions on photographing the building, see Section 66
of
> > the Copyright Act. It is not possible to copyright a building, but
copyright
> > does subsist in the design and plans.
> >
> > There are no restrictions regarding personal usage of photos of the
Opera
> > House. Commercial usage brings into play issues and laws
> > quite separate from copyright.
> >
> > The Sydney Opera House Trust administer the SOH and surrounding
property.
> > Any and all commercial activity must be carried out with the express
> > permission of the Trust. Commercial photographers (or where the photos
are
> > destined for a commercial purpose) must make application to conduct
photos
> > shoots on the SOH property. Each application is assessed on its own
merits
> > and access may or may not be granted and fees may apply.
>
> I then asked her which specific issues & laws come into play, whether
> these have been tested in court, whether it is only on the SOH property
> that they can administer such laws, and how much control they have over
> photos of the SOH taken from another place. Also asked if these laws
> were valid only if the SOH was the focal point of the photo.
> Her reply was unfortunately most unsatisfactory, and amounted to "trade
> practices mumble mumble don't know mumble go see a lawyer."
> Here is her 2nd reply:
> > The Trust administers the SOH property, it does not have regulate access
to
> > property elsewhere (although the local council or other organisation
might).
> >
> > Trade Practices legislation may come into play in terms of passing-off
or
> > false or misleading conduct, depending on the usage or application.
> >
> > You are probably best to seek legal advice in relation to this issue if
you
> > need any more detailed information or plan to move forward with
commercial
> > application of photography. The information I have provided is only a
> > general guide.
>
> So, make what you will of that I guess. To me, it would seem that they
> do have some control over photos taken ON their property for commercial
> purposes, or at least like to give the impression that they do.
> Apparently no control of photos taken of the SOH from anywhere else,
> although they want us to think that they do. But they are not really
> sure themselves, when pushed for an answer. Acts and laws are always
> open to interpretation, at least until precedents are set, and it would
> appear none have been regarding this.
>
> N
Sure, the original filesize was a humble 2045KB.
-A
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:iOzKa.674$Py2.7484@no-spam
> Can you tell me please the file size that came from the camera?
> JT
>
My perusal of the trademarks database tells me this is not a photograph
which is trademarked but an "image" devoid of detail.
JT
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efae63d$0$26637$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> "Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:LTzKa.689$Py2.6668@no-spam
> > Some time ago a (almost) client of mine decided to photograph every
house
> in
> > Brisbane. The idea was to provide Real Estate agents with pictorial
> > information. The deal would have made me quite wealthy... Until the
> property
> > owners objected and were found to have control over the end use of
> > photographs taken of their property. I suspect the SOH is in a similar
> > position. Just the same I'd like to see a legal argument in their favor.
> How
> > many people photographed the SHB and sold the pics?
> > JT
>
> The SHB is not protected, only when the SOH is in the same frame.
>
>
Sorry to keep at it Admiral...
Was that raw or a jpg?
JT
"Admiral" <kdick@no-spam> wrote in message
news:eXGKa.1037$Py2.11819@no-spam
> Sure, the original filesize was a humble 2045KB.
>
> -A
>
> "Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:iOzKa.674$Py2.7484@no-spam
> > Can you tell me please the file size that came from the camera?
> > JT
> >
>
>
>
In article <3efae8fb$0$26637$afc38c87@no-spam>,
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote:
> No person may use an image of the opera house to promote their own
> commercial interests. Such as an icon of Sydney with the image or shape of
> the Opera house.
>
> This could be in relation to photos or it may also be as a logo of your
> company.
>
> Maybe if you ask the right questions ..........
>
>
The right questions!!?? Sorry, forgot how difficult it is for you to
comprehend simple English. So there can be no misunderstandings I will
post your quotes, followed by my questions. I will even leave little
blanks after that, so you can fill it out easily. Just like a centrelink
form really. Lets see if you can follow the bouncing ball....
You said:
> The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
My questions regarding this are:
1. Where did you hear this?
Just to clarify what this question means: Miro, please quote an original
and authoritive souce.
2. Who owns said trademark?
Clarification: Please tell us which single person, company or goverment
department this trademark is registered to.
3. What form does the trademark take?
Clarification: Is this trademark a single image taken from a particular
place. or is it some sort of blanket coverage? Pleae explain the
meaning of this statement in detail.
4.(a) Has such law been testing through legal action, either civil or
criminal?
(b) If so, what was the outcome? Please quote case if known, names of
parties involved, or at least which in which court, and the year this
case was finalised. If it is still being heard, please give the next
date of hearing if known.
Next point:
You said:
> There are many restrictions.
My questions regarding this are:
1. What are these restrictions?
Clarification: Please list all restrictions in place, or point me to a
cite that lists all restrictions regarding photographing the Sydney
Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, both together and seperately.
Nest point:
You said:
> The SHB is not protected, only when the SOH is in the same frame.
My question is:
1. By whose authority?
Clarification: Which person, company or government department says so?
Again, please quote an original source
2. Protected by whom?
Clarification: Who enforces this?
Next point
You said:
> No person may use an image of the opera house to promote their own
> commercial interests. Such as an icon of Sydney with the image or shape of
> the Opera house.
My questions regarding this are:
1. By whose authority?
Clarification: We have already covered this, but tell us one more time,
as you are so adament.
2. What is an "icon of Sydney"?
Clarification: Please explain what this phrase means to you.
That will do for now. Hopefully these questions are easy for you to
follow. These questions have been tested out on all of my children for
ease of understanding. They range in age from 5 to 13 and are very
smart, so if you do have a problem just let me know and maybe I can make
it multiple choice next time. In case you have trouble with any big
words, please feel free to look to your big dic for help at any time:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
I look forward to the answers.
N
Lets not go overboard here...
Trademarks and copyright are 2 entirely different things. Trademarks are
"Identifiable" with a clear and precise description. Copyright is something
of a grey area in Australia but let's assume buy placing © on a photo, the
creator of the picture has some legal right to prevent others copying the
picture and selling it for profit... They may be able to copy it for their
own personal use. This is (not clearly) defined in the act.
While it is probably possible to trademark a picture of the SOH, it is not
possible to prevent a person taking pictures of the bloody place for profit.
All that can happen is that to go onto the grounds of the SOH and take
pictures for profit, you have to enter an agreement with the trust. There
does not seem to be any legal precedents for protection of copyright when it
applies to a facsimile of a structure. There are plenty for protection of a
trademark but none I can find relate to photographs.
The affair in Brisbane a few years ago relating to a firm photographing
every house in the city (both of them!) never went to court so we will never
know if the house owners had an established legal right to deny a person
taking a photograph of their building for profit.
Until someone actually goes ahead and gets into a legal bunfight over this
situation, people like Admiral will continue to have salable commodities and
be unwilling to promote them from fear of oppression by an undefined law
with no clear directions because people like Miro cast doubts on the
situation. I would not hesitate to photograph the place and then advertise
posters of the pictures ...provided I stood outside the as yet undefined
grounds of the place.
JT
I'll have to stop this in the mornings!...
"Narelle" <n3310@no-spam> wrote in message
news:n3310-7E0FC8.07282727062003@no-spam
> In article <3efae8fb$0$26637$afc38c87@no-spam>,
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > No person may use an image of the opera house to promote their own
> > commercial interests. Such as an icon of Sydney with the image or shape
of
> > the Opera house.
> >
> > This could be in relation to photos or it may also be as a logo of your
> > company.
> >
> > Maybe if you ask the right questions ..........
> >
> >
>
> The right questions!!?? Sorry, forgot how difficult it is for you to
> comprehend simple English. So there can be no misunderstandings I will
> post your quotes, followed by my questions. I will even leave little
> blanks after that, so you can fill it out easily. Just like a centrelink
> form really. Lets see if you can follow the bouncing ball....
> You said:
> > The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
>
> My questions regarding this are:
> 1. Where did you hear this?
> Just to clarify what this question means: Miro, please quote an original
> and authoritive souce.
>
>
> 2. Who owns said trademark?
> Clarification: Please tell us which single person, company or goverment
> department this trademark is registered to.
>
> 3. What form does the trademark take?
> Clarification: Is this trademark a single image taken from a particular
> place. or is it some sort of blanket coverage? Pleae explain the
> meaning of this statement in detail.
>
>
> 4.(a) Has such law been testing through legal action, either civil or
> criminal?
>
> (b) If so, what was the outcome? Please quote case if known, names of
> parties involved, or at least which in which court, and the year this
> case was finalised. If it is still being heard, please give the next
> date of hearing if known.
>
>
> Next point:
> You said:
> > There are many restrictions.
> My questions regarding this are:
> 1. What are these restrictions?
> Clarification: Please list all restrictions in place, or point me to a
> cite that lists all restrictions regarding photographing the Sydney
> Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, both together and seperately.
>
> Nest point:
> You said:
> > The SHB is not protected, only when the SOH is in the same frame.
> My question is:
> 1. By whose authority?
> Clarification: Which person, company or government department says so?
> Again, please quote an original source
>
> 2. Protected by whom?
> Clarification: Who enforces this?
>
> Next point
> You said:
> > No person may use an image of the opera house to promote their own
> > commercial interests. Such as an icon of Sydney with the image or shape
of
> > the Opera house.
> My questions regarding this are:
> 1. By whose authority?
> Clarification: We have already covered this, but tell us one more time,
> as you are so adament.
>
> 2. What is an "icon of Sydney"?
> Clarification: Please explain what this phrase means to you.
>
> That will do for now. Hopefully these questions are easy for you to
> follow. These questions have been tested out on all of my children for
> ease of understanding. They range in age from 5 to 13 and are very
> smart, so if you do have a problem just let me know and maybe I can make
> it multiple choice next time. In case you have trouble with any big
> words, please feel free to look to your big dic for help at any time:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/
> I look forward to the answers.
> N
> The right questions!!?? Sorry, forgot how difficult it is for you to
> comprehend simple English. So there can be no misunderstandings I will
> post your quotes, followed by my questions. I will even leave little
> blanks after that, so you can fill it out easily. Just like a centrelink
> form really. Lets see if you can follow the bouncing ball....
> You said:
> > The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
>
> My questions regarding this are:
> 1. Where did you hear this?
> Just to clarify what this question means: Miro, please quote an original
> and authoritive souce.
>
Read above ..... join the dots.
I don't mind mate... it was a jpg.
I very rarely shoot RAW, mainly because i've never taken the time to learn
how to effectively process it. It's on my "to do" list. =0)
-A
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:EtJKa.24$eR2.560@no-spam
> Sorry to keep at it Admiral...
> Was that raw or a jpg?
> JT
>
> "Admiral" <kdick@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:eXGKa.1037$Py2.11819@no-spam
> > Sure, the original filesize was a humble 2045KB.
> >
> > -A
> >
> > "Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:iOzKa.674$Py2.7484@no-spam
> > > Can you tell me please the file size that came from the camera?
> > > JT
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Auspics wrote:
> Lets not go overboard here...
> Trademarks and copyright are 2 entirely different things. Trademarks are
> "Identifiable" with a clear and precise description. Copyright is something
> of a grey area in Australia but let's assume buy placing © on a photo, the
> creator of the picture has some legal right to prevent others copying the
> picture and selling it for profit... They may be able to copy it for their
> own personal use. This is (not clearly) defined in the act.
errr - which act are you referring to? The Copyright act is very explicit.
There's no 'grey area in Australia', unlike many other countries that even force
you to register each copyrightable work!
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:17:55 +1000
Narelle wrote:
> In article <3efae8fb$0$26637$afc38c87@no-spam>,
> " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>No person may use an image of the opera house to promote their own
>>commercial interests. Such as an icon of Sydney with the image or shape of
>>the Opera house.
>
> My questions regarding this are:
> 1. By whose authority?
> Clarification: We have already covered this, but tell us one more time,
> as you are so adament.
>
> 2. What is an "icon of Sydney"?
> Clarification: Please explain what this phrase means to you.
>
No idea of the trademark issue, but in a convuluted way Miro in this
second bit is quoting the trade practices act that you have already
discussed. It is misleading to use an image of the Opera house, as it
implies an endorsment of your company by the opera house.
Will they worry normally? No, But they may try and grab licensing fees.
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:YsJKa.23$eR2.349@no-spam
> My perusal of the trademarks database tells me this is not a photograph
> which is trademarked but an "image" devoid of detail.
> JT
In legal terms the protection of an image devoid of detail is a superior to
an image depicting detail.
In article <3efb8405$0$26637$afc38c87@no-spam>,
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote:
> > The right questions!!?? Sorry, forgot how difficult it is for you to
> > comprehend simple English. So there can be no misunderstandings I will
> > post your quotes, followed by my questions. I will even leave little
> > blanks after that, so you can fill it out easily. Just like a centrelink
> > form really. Lets see if you can follow the bouncing ball....
> > You said:
> > > The bridge alone is ok, with SOH + SHB = trademark.
> >
> > My questions regarding this are:
> > 1. Where did you hear this?
> > Just to clarify what this question means: Miro, please quote an original
> > and authoritive souce.
> >
>
> Read above ..... join the dots.
>
>
Yes, thanks for the clarification that you have no idea what you are
talking about, that you do not know the difference between copyright and
a trademark, that you know nothing of the laws governing such things,
that your source is the voices in your head, that you are too lazy to
find out, too arrogant to admit it, and too dim-witted to notice. Once
again trying to have a reasonable discussion with you leads nowhere.
When you finish joining the dots you can progress to paint-by-number.
N
interesting article about almost this very thing in the latest edition of
Australian Geographic.
Narelle wrote:
> Yes, thanks for the clarification that you have no idea what you are
> talking about, that you do not know the difference between copyright
> and a trademark, that you know nothing of the laws governing such
> things, that your source is the voices in your head, that you are
> too lazy to find out, too arrogant to admit it, and too dim-witted
> to notice. Once again trying to have a reasonable discussion with
> you leads nowhere. When you finish joining the dots you can progress
> to paint-by-number.
Bravo! Well said!
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/Falcon_Users_Cookies.Define_User
select "Create New Connection"
trademarks of interest:
710167
847671
"NS" <nstacey@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB1F353B.D5C9%nstacey@no-spam
>
> in article TGPJa.581$g_1.3920@no-spam Admiral at
> kdick@no-spam wrote on 24/6/03 1:36 PM:
>
> > " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam
> >>
> >> The other thing is that the Opera House is highly protected by trademark
> >> restrictions.
> >
> > Does that mean that I wouldn't be able to legally sell copies of that
photo
> > without getting some kind of permission from the people who are in charge
of
> > the Opera House?
> >
> > -A
>
> Considering we had a thread on this last week under "property and model
> release", your query made me wonder whether you could sell copies. Perhaps
> the SOH falls into some sort of "special" catagory, seeing as it has "Aust
> icon" status, for want of better words??
> So, I have made enquiries at the SOH legal/business development dept. I
> have received an interesting reply, but have asked for clarification on a
> couple of things, as well as permission to post their reply here, if anyone
> is interested that is.
> N
>
That's all I could find too.
Hardly fits the description of "Photograph" although it shows you should not
use the wording: " Sydney Opera House" but it would be quite OK to say the
photo was of the 'Opera house in Sydney'
JT
"James R.I. Worrell" <james@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3effbdb0$0$59958$c30e37c6@no-spam
>
>
> http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/Falcon_Users_Cookies.Define_User
>
> select "Create New Connection"
>
> trademarks of interest:
>
> 710167
> 847671
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "NS" <nstacey@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB1F353B.D5C9%nstacey@no-spam
> >
> > in article TGPJa.581$g_1.3920@no-spam Admiral at
> > kdick@no-spam wrote on 24/6/03 1:36 PM:
> >
> > > " Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam
> > >>
> > >> The other thing is that the Opera House is highly protected by
trademark
> > >> restrictions.
> > >
> > > Does that mean that I wouldn't be able to legally sell copies of that
> photo
> > > without getting some kind of permission from the people who are in
charge
> of
> > > the Opera House?
> > >
> > > -A
> >
> > Considering we had a thread on this last week under "property and model
> > release", your query made me wonder whether you could sell copies.
Perhaps
> > the SOH falls into some sort of "special" catagory, seeing as it has
"Aust
> > icon" status, for want of better words??
> > So, I have made enquiries at the SOH legal/business development dept. I
> > have received an interesting reply, but have asked for clarification on
a
> > couple of things, as well as permission to post their reply here, if
anyone
> > is interested that is.
> > N
> >
>