I don't think there is a problem unless you intend to profit from the photograph. I don't know how sound it is but I'm a believer that if you don't want something photographed, keep it out of the public's view. The other thing I find quite interesting is a majority on the list frequently photograph or film images of people on or near the properties mentioned, with or without their consent.
All that being said, I still think it to be very rude to photograph an individual who doesn't want their picture taken.
It is not necessarily that taking the photo is illegal, rather what you do with the photo once you've taken it.
There are 3 places to get more specific information.
1. Your copyright attorney.
2. past Article in Popular Photography & Imaging "Its the Law"
3. American Society of Media Photographer's 6th edition "Professional Business Practices in Photography" ISBN 1-58115-197-7
I can understand restrict the use of a trademarked image for commercial purposes, but I have a hard time understanding one what grounds they prevent it's use for editorial or artistic use
I can understand restrict the use of a trademarked image for commercial purposes, but I have a hard time understanding one what grounds they prevent it's use for editorial or artistic use
On the grounds that they can pay for better lawyers and buy more legislators than you can.
Didn't Barbara Streisand try that recently with photos of her house? If I recall correctly, not only did she have to pay her lawyers, but the lawyers of the person she sued as well.
EDIT: Found the link. Apparently, she is refusing to pay though. LinkLink2
That's why people who value their privacy, and don't want the public to know what they're up to, buy large tracts of land in remote areas like Crawford, Texas.
