I was walking home last week and decided to go through the park. There was a play going on in the middle of the park, no stage, no fences, no signs, nothing. The play was an adapted version of Shakespeare's The Two Gentlemen of Verona, so I snapped some quick photos and tried to continue on. The GM of the play hastily came over and demanded I delete the photos. I didn't oblige but gave her my email address. Now she's sending me copyright infringement notices from her costume designers, lighting director, and each actor.
I was walking home last week and decided to go through the park. There was a play going on in the middle of the park, no stage, no fences, no signs, nothing. The play was an adapted version of Shakespeare's The Two Gentlemen of Verona, so I snapped some quick photos and tried to continue on. The GM of the play hastily came over and demanded I delete the photos. I didn't oblige but gave her my email address. Now she's sending me copyright infringement notices from her costume designers, lighting director, and each actor.
I'm just wondering, who's in the right here?
edit - I live in Ontario, Canada.
I am not a lawyer.
I did not play one on TV.
Heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
However, it would seem that editorial use would be fair game? What if you sent them to a local paper?
I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems that she does not understand that for there to be a copyright violation, you'd have to have used the photos commercially. Just taking them can't be a violation, that's just ridiculous. I too think that editorial use would be OK as well, but hey, what do I know?
it depends on what you do with the photos, taking the photo in a public place doesn't violate anything and you also cant be accused of copyright violations if you haven't infringed on any.
not sure what Canadian laws are but I would just tell them that the images are for personal use and if they are used for anything beyond that, you need their permission, which you don't have.
I was walking home last week and decided to go through the park. There was a play going on in the middle of the park, no stage, no fences, no signs, nothing. The play was an adapted version of Shakespeare's The Two Gentlemen of Verona, so I snapped some quick photos and tried to continue on. The GM of the play hastily came over and demanded I delete the photos. I didn't oblige but gave her my email address. Now she's sending me copyright infringement notices from her costume designers, lighting director, and each actor.
I'm just wondering, who's in the right here?
edit - I live in Ontario, Canada.
I'd be tempted to just go right to an attorney and tell them you want to file suit for harassment.
I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems that she does not understand that for there to be a copyright violation, you'd have to have used the photos commercially. Just taking them can't be a violation, that's just ridiculous. I too think that editorial use would be OK as well, but hey, what do I know?
Not quite. The usage does not need to be commercial to be infringing. Most copyright holders won't pursue for personal use, but ask anyone who has wrangled with Disney how that works.
You can take a picture no problem, it's the usage that creates the infringement.
As far as I can tell, they might have a performance copyright, where you can't reproduce the performance. However, since the original play is long out of copyright, I doubt that it would go very far in court. Besides that, it would be a huge PR disaster to sue someone for taking random pictures.
They're definitely not for sale. Just my own use, doing a photo-a-day thing and they happened to be the best one. That's their only use.
Thanks for the feedback.
However, since the original play is long out of copyright, I doubt that it would go very far in court.
It's their own adaption so to the best of my knowledge, they do have a leg to stand on. I've been trying to verify this, but reading through the legalese is quite cumbersome.
as pointed out, you are free to take photos, but not-so-free as to how you use those photos.
there are some uses that can be made without permission, such as the previously mentioned editorial use (this would involve publishing the photos in a legitimate publication). there is also, at least in the US, what is considered "fair use", which covers (to quote wikipedia) "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test." to a large degree, you can get away with just about anything in the privacy of your own home; it's only when you publicize what you have done that you can get out from under big brother's radar and make yourself a target (along the lines of "hey, everybody, i found a great way to build a movie library for free!").
on the other hand, commercial use requires permission. commercial use covers things such as creating a product for mass production and resale (such as postcards and coffee mugs), as well as for promotion (such as mass mailings, promotional videos, and posters).
while there are decidedly some things you cannot do with those images, i think this particular GM might reaching beyond her pay grade to try to rope you in with "copyright violations". in all my readings, i've only found in-kind infringements where one actually copies something. here, that would mean making a costume or reconstructing a set for a play. another way of putting it would be to say that one has appropriated someone else's property and exploited its use, as is, for their own benefit, without making any substantive changes to the original property, nor creating anything to benefit anyone other than his or herself. see, one of the basic purposes of copyright, at least in the US, is to allow others to freely build on the works of others. the general idea is that your work may be inspired and based on someone else's. it's only when you patently copy someone else's work for your own (think Joe Satriani vs Coldplay - even though that was settled out of court) that you really run the risk of getting nailed for infringement.
also, related to photographing, video-taping, or audio-recording plays and performances. inside a private venue (or a public venue leased by a private entity), there can be restrictions against recording the performances. violators can be escorted out, but their property cannot be confiscated and their media is not subject to deletion. if someone wants to try and get away with it, at that moment they are only risking ejection from the premises. however, if one were to escape with the goods, they would be putting themselves at risk for litigation should they decide to publish and/or distribute their media. on the other hand, in public, in an area freely accessible to the public (not roped or fenced off, not requiring tickets, etc), you are free to record in any media. all that matters is what you do with what you record...
i'm just glad that you refused to delete the images.
and, if it's not too much trouble, would you mind posting up the exact language that she's using in these infringement notices? i'm just curious.
eta, i'm not a lawyer, either, just married to one. that and i read a lot ;-)
I also am NOT a lawyer, and would strongly suggest that you take the time to peruse the contents of Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) issued by the Department of Justice Canada.
I realize that this is a rather cumbersome undertaking, but other than asking for an opinion from legal counsel, this is your best bet.
However, since the original play is long out of copyright, I doubt that it would go very far in court.
It's their own adaption so to the best of my knowledge, they do have a leg to stand on. I've been trying to verify this, but reading through the legalese is quite cumbersome.
Yeah, I thought about that, and it's a valid point.
