Re: 24 x 36 10D print anyone?

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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$(E-Mail Removed) u...
>
> The other thing is that the Opera House is highly protected by trademark
> restrictions.
>
>
>




Admiral

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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.
>

"Scott Coutts" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>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.
>
>

in article TGPJa.581$(E-Mail Removed), Admiral at
(E-Mail Removed) wrote on 24/6/03 1:36 PM:

> " Miro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$(E-Mail Removed) u...
>>
>> 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$(E-Mail Removed), Admiral at
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote on 24/6/03 1:36 PM:
>
> > " Miro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:3ef6d43f$0$26638$(E-Mail Removed) u...
> >>
> >> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3ef8b0ee$0$26634$(E-Mail Removed) u...
>
>>
>> Those are all giving kickback to the Opera House.
>>
>>
>> "Admiral" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:QQ0Ka.1472$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Rob <(E-Mail Removed)> 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