|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
837 online
Server Time:
2024-05-15 03:43:52
|
|
|
| 1 2 | UER Forum > US: Northeast > Friend in NYC charged with trespassing after detectives saw his photos (Viewed 9135 times) |
OnlyFootprints
Total Likes: 130 likes
| | | Re: Friend in NYC charged with trespassing after detectives saw his photos < Reply # 28 on 12/27/2016 11:44 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | I'm super late to the party on this but to the OP who said "He's a professional photographer" No he isn't. A real pro has an agent/rep, a studio manager, a producer and enough clout to gain access legally. At the very least a real protest calls from clients to shoot, they don't shoot and then try and sell their shit to a web site. He is at best an amateur who sells his product to a bunch of middle of the road rags. No one is hiring him, he has no commercial clients. His images are a shade better than most first year photo students at Art Center. What he does is photojournalism. I mean, his "product" category is an obscene joke. No lighting, no post. It looks like he walked into a mall with a point and shoot. And his people shots.... stahp already. If he was a real pro, he wouldn't have to broadcast and sell out the locations he shoots. You don't see Kurt Iswarienko, Jeff Reidel, or any other real pro's blabbing about their locations. Sorry to the other members for this rant, but I'm tired of these "fake" pro's and also tired of people blowing out good spots for some click bait.
|
|
| OnlyFootprints
Total Likes: 130 likes
| | | Re: Friend in NYC charged with trespassing after detectives saw his photos < Reply # 34 on 1/31/2017 11:22 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by terapr0
Well that was thoroughly elitist. I am not, nor do I aspire to be a "professional" photographer, but I know several, and their accomplishments and degrees of success (monetary and otherwise) vary dramatically, as with almost every single other profession on the planet. Not every "professional" photographer has a studio manager or a producer. Lots of "professionals" don't shoot inside studios. As far as I'm concerned the only real qualifier for being a "professional" photographer is that it be your primary source of income. Some people might make a million dollars a year at it, some might pull in poverty-level wages. They're both "professionals" in their own right. Nikon "Professional Services" tends to agree with my rationale too, for what it's worth....
| You're right. I was just pissed by the OP's statement and didn't iterate myself clearly. Mostly because I am so sick of these jag-offs exploiting the crap out of a place and ruining it for the die hards out there. Yes, you are 100% right, technically a pro does make their living primarily by their photography no matter what that wage is. I guess my angle was as a "professional" he should have taken the proper steps to get his shots. Cutting corners is freshman year antics. P.S.- A studio manager is the person who manages the office of the photographer, not necessarily an actual studio.
|
|
| OnlyFootprints
Total Likes: 130 likes
| | | Re: Friend in NYC charged with trespassing after detectives saw his photos < Reply # 35 on 1/31/2017 11:30 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by terapr0
Since when did you need to have owners sign a release to use images of their property in commercial photographs? maybe things are different in Canada, but up here at least, my understanding is that only people need to give permission. Buildings and other such inanimate objects have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I can be asked to leave private property for setting up a commercial shoot inside of a mall, for instance, but they couldn't prevent me from using whatever photos I took of their building before I was asked to leave. Individuals photographed have a valid claim preventing me from using their likeness, but the building has no such recourse...It's a building, not a person.
| It is common practice to obtain a release from the owner of a property (home, car, pet, artwork, etc) before the image can be used by a third party for an advertisement. This usually applies when shooting on private property, when shooting in a public area (like a sidewalk) but prominently featuring a private property, or when shooting in public where a film/photo permit is required for your shoot (advertising and most editorials). I had AT&T (their ad agency) want to use an image I took inside a home, but since I did not have the owners permission in writing, only the talent had signed a release, they passed on licensing my photo. Here is a quote from an entertainment attorney on the issue: "A property release is advisable and may be needed from each property owner whose property appears in a photograph that is used for advertising or trade (business) purposes when the property owner is clearly identifiable by the property. (Note that the owner can be a corporation as well as an individual.)"
|
|
| |
UER Forum > US: Northeast > Friend in NYC charged with trespassing after detectives saw his photos (Viewed 9135 times) | 1 2 | |
This thread is currently Public. Anyone, including search engines, may see it. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 171 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741778564 pages have been generated.
|
|