Virtual Cachers Are Criminals!

1.8k · February 13, 2005

Looks like anyone who has ever logged this virtual cache has committed a violation against US copyright law. Check out this Slashdot discussion for more information.

How many other virtuals are out there that are committing similar acts of copyright violation? All you virt owners need to take a look at your caches and make sure you're not going to cause a potential finder to get fined or arrested looking for your virt. If so, you may want to consider archiving it before it causes trouble.

Edited February 13, 2005 by The Cheeseheads

February 13, 2005

This seems to be written from the point of view of a professional photographer, ie. someone who will be attempting to make a living from the photographs taken. Lots of places tend to 'swoop' on anyone with a tripod, as they seem to think it defines a professional from a happy-snapper... I suspect the majority of cachers would not fall into the 'professional photographer' category.

February 13, 2005

This is too funny! Was that some early April Fool's Day Joke or something? I'll have nightmares about being "swooped down on" by blackmailing security guards on Segways! Couldn't you just run away from 'em? Didn't I see an episode of Reno 911 like that? Please tell me this isn't real...next thing you know, they'll try to put a tax on pretty views in National Parks. Oh wait...let's not give TPTB any ideas! :lostsignal:

2k · February 13, 2005

Wow... if the park is paid for from public funds, you should be able to enjoy it. It sounds like they have a little "business" going on for themselves. It might be fun to threaten them with a lawsuit.

2.4k · February 13, 2005

Wow... if the park is paid for from public funds, you should be able to enjoy it. It sounds like they have a little "business" going on for themselves. It might be fun to threaten them with a lawsuit.

Area 51 was paid for with public funds, think they'll let you take pictures there if you threaten to sue them?

February 13, 2005

Ain't no such place pal. :lostsignal:

9.5k · February 13, 2005

...at least not on the maps...

:lostsignal:

February 13, 2005

We have a public park here where the exact same thing happens. When you walk in they ask you if you have a camera. There is a cache in there and I didn't know anything about the place when I went to hunt it. So the woman says "Is that a camera?" I say "No, it's a GPS". She says "Does it take pictures?" I say "No, it's a GPS." (still not quite comprehending what she's asking). She says "Does it take movies?" I say (you guessed it...) "No, it's a GPS". :lostsignal: FInally, I guess she couldn't tell if I was being a wise a** or not so she says "well, go on in. Just don't take any pictures." :rolleyes:

Turns out that even though this is a public place, the city charges a permit fee if you want to take wedding, prom group, etc., pictures here. Someone ought to tell the employees that this doesn't apply to individuals taking snapshots of the architecture. Of course the place is in such disrepair that they ought to take some of that money and put it into preserving all the marble and tile.

9.4k · February 13, 2005

I haven't heard of cops like that anywhere but Tijuana, Mexico! :lostsignal:

February 13, 2005

If you are in a public place, then you have the right to take pictures of anything you can see, even if it is on private property.

If you are on Private property, or property owner by the US government, they can limit picture taking (like area 51, or any Navy base, etc).

I am a former pro. Photographer and have taken thousands of pics at various times. A long as I am on public property, no one can stop me. That is how paparazzi get the stars pics...

2.2k · February 13, 2005

sounds to me that what you have is two very bored security guards seeing just how far they can go before getting into trouble. good way of getting beer money....

i can see the council might have a chance to charge wedding photos etc but everyone else just taking snapshots should have no probs. i'd hope!

mind you government local and national will try anything to get extra cash from us! :lostsignal:

4.8k · February 13, 2005

So I guess I shouldn't sell this huh?

3.8k · February 14, 2005

If you are in a public place, then you have the right to take pictures of anything you can see, even if it is on private property.
If you are on Private property, or property owner by the US government, they can limit picture taking (like area 51, or any Navy base, etc).

I am a former pro. Photographer and have taken thousands of pics at various times. A long as I am on public property, no one can stop me. That is how paparazzi get the stars pics...

That's what I always say.

February 14, 2005

I believe the argument is that if something or someone is in a public place, then there is no reason to expect privacy, therefore pictures of that something or someone can be taken.

Groover

9.5k · February 14, 2005

Copyright law is fairly complex and fair usage of copyrighted material is fairly limited. Even if the product is on public property, fair use as provided by the courts are still very limiting, especially if the copyrighted product includes any and all images of it.

It's hard to follow, but here is the Copyright Law of the USA.

This next page discusses the fair use guidelines as provided by the copyright law.

Edited to add this page is an excellent essay on copyright myths.

Edited February 14, 2005 by TotemLake

February 14, 2005

What a complete waste of time! :lostsignal:

9.5k · February 14, 2005

Actually, it really isn't. The comments from One of the Texas Vikings shows a basic ignorance of copyrights and the fair use guidelines. Admittedly, Fair Use guidelines makes for a fuzzy area and subject to varied legal opinions. However:

If you are in a public place, then you have the right to take pictures of anything you can see, even if it is on private property.

If you are on Private property, or property owner by the US government, they can limit picture taking (like area 51, or any Navy base, etc).

I am a former pro. Photographer and have taken thousands of pics at various times. A long as I am on public property, no one can stop me. That is how paparazzi get the stars pics...

Taking pictures of stars can make the photo shooter liable to lawsuits if the star chooses, providing the star took the time to copyright any and all images taken in the past, present and future. Again, how the courts choose to allow this to be chased is subjective to varied legal opinions.

The same thing can happen with this "bean" art.

9.4k · February 14, 2005

The same thing can happen with this "bean" art.

Especially if Jelly Belly decided to use it in an advertising campaign.

20.7k · February 14, 2005

A copyright does not protect a person or an object from being photographed.

If I design a building, and copyright my design, the copyright stops people from using my design on their building. It does not stop a person from taking a pic of my building.

A person can copyright a picture of a person or object, but the copyright does not stop others from taking pics of the person or object. These pics can also be copyrighted.

If an item is in a public place, you may take a picture of it. You can copyright this picture. You can then sell this copyrighted picture. If the owner of the object uses your copyrighted picture without your permission, you can sue him for copyright infringement (even if the design of the original item was copyrighted).

20.7k · February 14, 2005

On my office wall, I have a panoramic pic of the NYC skyline that I took pre-9/11. If I chose to, I could copyright that pic and try to sell it. I do not have to worry if anything in that pic was copyrighted.

A friend has a pic of the Wall Street bull with his little girl perched on its back. I have no doubt that Di Modica has that thing copyrighted, but that hasn't stopped anyone from taking pics, or copyrighting these pics.

2.5k · February 14, 2005

I know one cacher that is a Criminal, but I don't think he does virts. He is more into long hikes in the mountains.

:lol:

24.7k · February 14, 2005

They would have better luck building a wall around it and charging admission. So long as they don't copyright the wall they should be good to go.

February 14, 2005

A copyright does not protect a person or an object from being photographed.

If I design a building, and copyright my design, the copyright stops people from using my design on their building. It does not stop a person from taking a pic of my building.

From what I have read about this bean thing elsewhere this isn't a classic copyright issue, rather it is an intellectual property issue.

As such it falls more into the 'can I download an MP3 from the internet of a copyrighted song without breaking the law?' area.

In such a case nothing is being 'taken' as the song still exists and is available to other people.

However, the idea is the intellectual property can be 'stolen' by people reproducing it (such as photographing the bean) since it deprives the owner of the bean from charging for photos of it. Same with downloading music. You haven't actually taken anything from anyone, but you have potentially deprived the 'owner' of profit had you purchased the song.

IP law is much less set in stone than other copyright law so this is the kind of thing we can expect to see until some cases make their way to the Supreme court and things are more settled legally.

5.3k · February 14, 2005

When photographs are outlawed, only outlaws will have photographs.

February 14, 2005

On my office wall, I have a panoramic pic of the NYC skyline that I took pre-9/11. If I chose to, I could copyright that pic and try to sell it. I do not have to worry if anything in that pic was copyrighted.

Yes, but then you may be running afoul of someone's trademark rights! :lol:

20.7k · February 14, 2005

Trademark? That's a very interesting issue.

Of course, a skilled trademark lawyer would argue that their trademark rights have been abandoned because they have failed to monitor its use.

9.5k · February 14, 2005

A copyright does not protect a person or an object from being photographed.

If I design a building, and copyright my design, the copyright stops people from using my design on their building. It does not stop a person from taking a pic of my building.

A person can copyright a picture of a person or object, but the copyright does not stop others from taking pics of the person or object. These pics can also be copyrighted.

If an item is in a public place, you may take a picture of it. You can copyright this picture. You can then sell this copyrighted picture. If the owner of the object uses your copyrighted picture without your permission, you can sue him for copyright infringement (even if the design of the original item was copyrighted).

I agree with your premise that a person cannot be stopped from taking photographs.

However, this does not protect them from the civil liability the copyrights allow for if they infringe upon the copyright.

DaveA above makes a good statement about Intellectual Property.

Based on that...

How many of you here never thought the RIAA would go after the little guy? I remember all the discussions and arguements that were happening just before they filed the thousands of lawsuits to correct the civil wrong.

Just because you can do it, doesn't make it right or legal. A lot of folks are learning that the hard way in court thanks to RIAA.

20.7k · February 14, 2005

I do not believe that taking pics in public is a parallel issue to downloading music.

9.5k · February 14, 2005

...and the little guy believed they wouldn't be sued of intellectual property theft which was copyrighted; which is what the cases were built on.

With all due respect, you really don't know where you stand without reading the links I provided above.

20.7k · February 14, 2005

I read your links and did a little bit more research. The only thing that was close to being on point was protecting the design of a building.

Edited February 14, 2005 by sbell111

20.7k · February 14, 2005

Taking pictures of stars can make the photo shooter liable to lawsuits if the star chooses, providing the star took the time to copyright any and all images taken in the past, present and future. ...

This is not correct. A person cannot copyright 'any and all images taken in the past, present, and future. You can copyright pictures that you took in the past. You cannot copyright images that do not yet exist.

Photographers get themselves into trouble when they trespass to take pictures. If a 'star' is in public, anyone can take a picture and is free to sell it. The person who takes such a picture is the owner of it and if free to copyright if they so please. This is in no way analogous to downloading someone else's work.

9.5k · February 14, 2005

Actually... we're kind of both right. Thanks for making me look up the correction to my statement.

It's known as People’s Right of Publicity. The conditions and how it's handled can be read at this page.

20.7k · February 14, 2005

That was a great link. I think it wraps up this thread nicely.

As I read it, according to the lawyer who wrote it, a person need not get a release from the owner of the bean if the image is not going to be used for commercial purposes.

Also, no release is necessary from any individuals in the pictures if the pictures are not being used for commercial purposes or if the people’s presence is merely incidental and their identities are not vital to the pictures’ subject matter.

24.7k · February 14, 2005

...
Based on that...

How many of you here never thought the RIAA would go after the little guy? I remember all the discussions and arguements that were happening just before they filed the thousands of lawsuits to correct the civil wrong.

Just because you can do it, doesn't make it right or legal. A lot of folks are learning that the hard way in court thanks to RIAA....

Thanks to the RIAA I have pretty much quit buying music. Over time I've probably bought about 300 CD's 200 Tapes and 100 LP's. The RIAA convinced me that I could just listen to the radio and be about as happy. They can win in court but in the end it's biting the hand that feeds them.

So far I've probably bought 50 less CD's than I would have.

Hypotheticaly speaking. If a building is about to be torn down and the Historical Preservation Office says "Photographicly Document" the building and it's protected like was discussed...

9.4k · February 14, 2005

I hope this doesn't continue on the path of discussing music. It is already barely on topic to geocaching as it is.

February 15, 2005

A copyright does not protect a person or an object from being photographed.

If I design a building, and copyright my design, the copyright stops people from using my design on their building. It does not stop a person from taking a pic of my building.

A person can copyright a picture of a person or object, but the copyright does not stop others from taking pics of the person or object. These pics can also be copyrighted.

If an item is in a public place, you may take a picture of it. You can copyright this picture. You can then sell this copyrighted picture. If the owner of the object uses your copyrighted picture without your permission, you can sue him for copyright infringement (even if the design of the original item was copyrighted).

Actually - some spots are illegal to photograph. Can't snap a picture in NYC subways - can't take a picture of the GW bridge - although I don't have a clue how it's enforced.

Here's an apparently illegal picture from last weekend up north of Stowe VT. The border patrol quickly pointed out my error (much to the kids delight!). Who knew - a simple digital picture can land you in jail....

February 15, 2005

Why is that picture illegal?

February 15, 2005

Because it's a border crossing?

2.5k · February 15, 2005

I think he's referring to the smiling while having one foot on US soil with another stepping on foreign snow thing. Honestly, those kids need to practice their cocky "Oh yeah, So what if I'm stomping on your snow? Royally mount this!" expressions a bit more.

Edit: cute kids :laughing:

Edited February 15, 2005 by cachew nut

24.7k · February 15, 2005

Why is that picture illegal?

It's got to be related to terrorism. The sign lacks much in the way of aesthetics but I don't think the USA bans documenting poor taste in overdone colors.

February 15, 2005

Yup, taking photographs can be "illegal" but a lot of people do it because they don't know the complexities of the law. Click here to see the Lone Cypress Tree at the Pebble Beach Golf Club that is copyrighted. If you click, go to this site, and read the caption under the picture it state that ALL photos taken of this tree by anyone are the property of the golf club. Apparently a lot of National Parks are forcing anyone who looks like a professional photographer to pay for a permit as well. National security issues (real or imagined) prohibit photos in many areas. Museums prohibit photos for both intelectial property reasons and light from flashes affecting paintings, etc..

Think of this issue like reading a library book. You can read it as many times as you like but if you decide you want to copy the book so you'll have your own copy, you've broken the law. If you want a legal copy of the book you have to buy one. The price of the book can be considered to include a license for you to own the book.

9.4k · February 15, 2005

Why is that picture illegal?

You can use the photos of the building behind the sign to plan out a terrorist attack, such as entry points and vulnerabilities. Or at least general photos can be used to do this, so they don't allow any pictures. That is my hypothesis.

2k · February 15, 2005

Why is that picture illegal?

I'm going with the security option. Those pesky Canadians are just waiting to attack. First they will take over the country by force of arms then privatize medicine.

Beware the Canadian Menace!

February 15, 2005

Why is that picture illegal?

You can use the photos of the building behind the sign to plan out a terrorist attack, such as entry points and vulnerabilities. Or at least general photos can be used to do this, so they don't allow any pictures. That is my hypothesis.

You are correct sir. Apparently, it's illegal to take pictures in the vicinity of US border installations (at least that's how it was 'splained to me - I didn't check to confirm it anywhere).

Nevermind this particular border crossing was a one lane road which probably sees 20 cars per day (although it is a surprising large building on the US side, eh?). Nevermind we took a similar picture on the "Welcome to Quebec" sign and there was no issue from the Canadian folks. The canadian side has a building that looks more like a tiny gas station.

I know the border officers are just doing their job. I was very respectful and when we left one of the officers said "well, you don't look like a terrorist". I'm sure they're far more worried about drug traffic in that area than anything else, but it did lend some excitement to the day and gave us something to laugh about.

I'm just concerned the government will start profiling guys driving green Subaru outback wagons with their wife and small kids in the car. Thankfully, the car's registered to my wife - so she'll get hassled next time she tries to board an airplane and find she's on a watch list!

Oh, and I had the GPS sitting on the front dash of the car - thankfully they're not illegal to use around border crossings!

February 15, 2005

Yup, taking photographs can be "illegal" but a lot of people do it because they don't know the complexities of the law. Click here to see the Lone Cypress Tree at the Pebble Beach Golf Club that is copyrighted. If you click, go to this site, and read the caption under the picture it state that ALL photos taken of this tree by anyone are the property of the golf club.

I went there and this is what it said under the pecture:

This is the famous, Lone Cypress Tree, located on the 17 mile drive, through, Pebble Beach. This tree is the logo of the Pebble Beach Golf Club. There is some law that says that they own every image ever taken of the tree by anyone.

This is not necessarily a fact but a repeat of something they thought they heard or even did hear (if its on the internet its true). It is somewhat vague, where is that law? How can they own the copyright to a photo taken before they copyrighted it even by someone not associated with them?

20.7k · February 15, 2005

The have a trademark on their logo of the tree. Any commercial use of an image of the tree could be a violation of their copyright.

Courts have been mixed on ruling that a landmark can be trademarked, however. The NY stock exchange lost its bid to stop the New York-New York casino from using its image.

A suit over the use of the Flatiron building in NYC was settled out of court.

20.7k · February 15, 2005

This whole trademark issue does not hinder an individual from taking pics that will be used for non-commercial purposes, obviously.

February 15, 2005

Re the Intellectual Property discussion of "the bean"...

Some thoughts have occurred to me. Why is a using a "mirror" "intellectual

property"? Show the "artist" who created "the bean" be sued by the likes of "The

Barnum and Bailey (sp) Circus"? After all, there are plenty of warped mirrors out

there. In fact many people go to the store to buy a warped mirror. (It magnifies

the image.)

Second, how "intellectual" is it to intimidate people. Didn't we use to call those

folks gangsters? It sounds like a variation of the "protection" racket -- only this

time the artist seems to have bamboozled the city's officials.

Third, re: the images of the Cypress tree on the 17 Mile Drive... The area really

is (or used to be anyway) quite beautiful. I was there maybe 25 years ago. Back

then Pebble Beach was a gated community, and I can't imagine that that has

changed. As such I suppose that all of the land there could be considered to be

private property, but I don't know how this relates to copyright. Is the argument

now that all of those famoius photographs by Ansel Adams of National Parks are

now in the "public domain" because he took pictures of "public property?"

Have any "supermodels" copyrighted themselves? Last I knew the copyright of a

photograph belongs to the photographer. I presume the "copyright" of a sculpture

belongs to the sculptor, but a photograph is not a sculpture.

I suppose this gets into an "iffy" area. I know that for the past few years the

House Manager comes out before the play begins and announces that photographs

of the play is not permitted by the "guild". I've heard similar statements at other

kinds of performances. I understand the concern in the movie theaters as I've

heard that some people will produce pirate movies by filming the show, but a lot

of this seems to have been taken to an extreme.

I certainly hope this kind of thinking does not apply to geocaches!

Hey, I invented that kind of hide! If you want to use it, you'll have to pay my

licensing fee. Fork up, or I'll sue you!

Argh!

Edited February 15, 2005 by NBJPoppa

February 15, 2005

when I looked at the title of this thread, I imagined holographic cachers robbing a bank :huh:

Edited February 15, 2005 by camo-crazed

February 17, 2005

I know down in DC you cannot sell any photos you have taken of the national monuments. If you even look like a pro photog you get hasseled.

-Jared

Virtual Cachers Are Criminals!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment