 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / July 2005US Corporate Thuggery Against Photographer
This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being threatened with legal action. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm > This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being > threatened with legal action. > > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm Depends upon how the laws are in India. He might have legal ground for such an image, or it could be slander . . . really just depends upon how the laws are interpreted. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >He might have legal ground for such an image, or it could be slander . . Come off it Gordon, Coke is trying to intimidate a photographer for taking an image in a public place that it just happens to find not so positive towards it. These corps. must think people are completely stupid. > > This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > > photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being > > threatened with legal action. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm > Depends upon how the laws are in India. He might have legal ground for such an > image, or it could be slander . . . really just depends upon how the laws are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> > >He might have legal ground for such an image, or it could be slander . . > > Come off it Gordon, Coke is trying to intimidate a photographer for taking > an image in a public place that it just happens to find not so positive > towards it. These corps. must think people are completely stupid. I don't pretend to know the laws in India. I have read of unfavourable laws in some countries, so it would not surprise me. The simple act of Coca Cola filing a lawsuit much mean they think they have some legal basis for that. That the photographer is willing to fight also indicates that he believes he did nothing wrong. Did you even read that article. . . . . . He is a regular photographer for Coca Cola. He also took that photo, but then placed it on a large billboard. This is very different, in my view, to someone taking a photo and having it appear in a newspaper. I will reserve judgement until he sees his day in court, and I wish the photographer luck. Based upon US laws, I would not think the case would have any merit here. It would have surprised me more if this case was being tried in the US. Of course, there might not even be such a case in the US, though there are bad examples here too. Look up the lawsuit Mattel filed against a photographer who used Barbie dolls in compromising positions. After five years, and free legal help, he prevailed in that decision, and then the judge slapped a frivolous lawsuit fine upon Mattel. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a >> photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are > interpreted. In other words who can afford the best lawyers. Lets face it he's screwed. As a 'former' client he is double screwed. > >> This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > >> photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In other words who can afford the best lawyers. Lets face it he's screwed. > As a 'former' client he is double screwed. Not necessarily. I don't know the laws in India, though if he wins and Coca Cola is required to pay his legal fees, then he would not necessarily be "screwed". There is also the negative publicity aspect, in that it might hurt Coca Cola sales more to fight him, than to just let him have his image on his billboard. I am curious to see how this plays out. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being > threatened with legal action. > > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm Did you ever see Dr. Strangelove????? But as far as it goes, I think that would fall under the "fair use" rules here in the states. Oh, and there's a big difference between just taking a picture and posting it on a billboard. As usual, the corporate morons don't have a clue that threatening this guy will cause them more damage than the billboard ever could. Best Regards, DAve . > As usual, the corporate morons don't have a clue that threatening this guy > will cause them more damage than the billboard ever could. When i order anything with cola in it i usually ask for 'with coke'. Due to the feud the waiters now say 'we only have pepsi is that ok?' i said i weren't really worried which is when they explained the latest legal crap from the cola war. Also here in britain restaruants who reuse heinz squeezee bottles by refilling with a cheaper brand of red sauce can get screwed by the sauce police. Its not actually illegal unless someone complains to trading standards or some such so heinz have their own crew who dress up as bottles and tomatoes and stand outside the restaraunt with banners in order to 'shame' the owners of the cafes to owing up or stop re-using the containers. Its like most people say sticky tape or even more say sellotape. On one childrens program they are only allowed to say sticky backed plastic. This is the BBC. They don't use advertising revenue only the tv tax. So some BBC programs even designed and packaged their own household products so rather than off the shelf stuff so that no known brands got any free advertising or any fear of accusations of product placements. I've noticed a few epsiodes of american tv where forensics or reporters using slrs have the brand blanked off on the front. > . > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I've noticed a few epsiodes of american tv where forensics or reporters > using slrs have the brand blanked off on the front. In California, there is the Department of Weights and Measures. It use to be that I could go to one of my favourite cafés, and order a medium gelato. Now, due to the DW&M, they have a scale at the gelato counter, and charge everyone by the weight of the "medium gelato". Time to see the Department of Redundancy Department. :~( Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> 'tis no more goofy than the lawsuit (from a number of years back) where 7-Up tried to sue 7-Eleven Stores for using the 7 in their name. Winner: a tie. The case was tossed out of court by the judge. = = = > > . > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > i said i weren't really worried which is when they explained the latest SNIP > Now, due to the DW&M, they have a scale at the gelato counter, and charge everyone > by the weight of the "medium gelato". Time to see the Department of Redundancy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> >I've noticed a few epsiodes of american tv where forensics or reporters >using slrs have the brand blanked off on the front. I expect they would remove the tape just as soon as the camera company coughed up a healthy sponsorship for having their brand name prominently displayed. >>I've noticed a few epsiodes of american tv where forensics or reporters >>using slrs have the brand blanked off on the front. > > I expect they would remove the tape just as soon as the camera company > coughed up a healthy sponsorship for having their brand name > prominently displayed. Unfortunately my total lack of faith in american lawyers means that the opposing brands would sue cos using brand x would suggest that the real police use brand Y which simply isn't true and damages their image. >Oh, and there's a big difference between just taking a picture and posting it on a billboard. Apparently this guy uses billboards regularly to showcase his work, it wasn't just in the case of this coke image. > As usual, the corporate morons don't have a clue that threatening this > guy will cause them more damage than the billboard ever could. As I said ridiculous, when I first saw it I thought it was a spoof. Imagine Fuji and Kodak taking photographer's to court for producing bad pictures with their films. > > This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > > photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being > > threatened with legal action. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm > Did you ever see Dr. Strangelove????? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > DAve '' .. displaying one of his photographs - depicting water shortages against a backdrop of the company's ubiquitous logo - on a giant billboard.'' Using the company logo (it is not clear what was actually done in this case) on a billboard could be a violation in the US. The logo and it's use is the property of the owner.  SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia duit > This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being > threatened with legal action. > > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm > Using the company logo (it is not clear what was actually done in > this case) on a billboard could be a violation in the US. The logo and > it's use is the property of the owner. Hmmm.. but if they put up their logo in a public space, how can they then demand that it mustn't be photographed? How is photography any worse than observing that coca cola is producing drinks where famine is? Sure one can observe in biased ways, but I'm more of a libertarian and believe in freedom of speech. Though I presume that the law will tell me differently. Duncan >> Using the company logo (it is not clear what was actually >> done in this case) on a billboard could be a violation in the US. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > libertarian and believe in freedom of speech. Though I presume that > the law will tell me differently. Duncan You need to go back the the part of my message you snipped. '' .. displaying one of his photographs - depicting water shortages against a backdrop of the company's ubiquitous logo - on a giant billboard.'' It would appear to me that the person in question was displaying his photographs (which likely was not a problem) against a backdrop of the Coke logo which may well have not been a photo or may have been nothing more than a photographic copy of the logo. As noted in my message "it is not clear what was actually done in this case" it is not clear. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia duit "Duncan J Murray" <duncan.murray@remove.this.bit.medical-school.and.this.bit.oxford.ac.uk> wrote: >Hmmm.. but if they put up their logo in a public space, how can they then >demand that it mustn't be photographed? It's not clear to me that the logo was in a public place. The article just says that the picture shows a row of pots, a dry well, and the logo and tagline in the background. I can't assume from that description that the logo was publicly displayed in the village behind the well. I haven't seen the actual photograph, but my impression is that the logo was either edited in by the photographer, or was part of the photographer's setup. Mark Sieving > This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being > threatened with legal action. > > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm It says the company in India is taking action, not the US company. >> This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a >> photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It says the company in India is taking action, not the US company. Its all one big bastard company. Sugar water with enough acid to dissolve a tooth in 24 hours flat. >>> This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a >>> photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Its all one big bastard company. Sugar water with enough acid to dissolve > a tooth in 24 hours flat. Maybe I should stop keeping mouthfuls of coke in my mouth for days at a time then. >>>> This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a >>>> photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Maybe I should stop keeping mouthfuls of coke in my mouth for days at a > time then. Its quite common for those working in mcdonalds to have their front two teeth corroded from the back to the front. its cos employees have free access to the coke and they drink through the straw. It literally corrodes them and it doesn't take that long either. > Its quite common for those working in mcdonalds to have their front two > teeth corroded from the back to the front. its cos employees have free > access to the coke and they drink through the straw. It literally corrodes > them and it doesn't take that long either. Proof? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Its quite common for those working in mcdonalds to have their front two >> teeth corroded from the back to the front. its cos employees have free >> access to the coke and they drink through the straw. It literally >> corrodes them and it doesn't take that long either. > > Proof? I had a friend who drove back and forth across the country frequently. He kept a cooler of Coke on the floor on the passenger side of his car. (his front teeth were in pretty bad shape) He told me that when he drove through a freshly tarred road, the best stuff for cleaning the tar off his car was the Coke....... >>> Its quite common for those working in mcdonalds to have their front >>> two teeth corroded from the back to the front. its cos employees [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > me that when he drove through a freshly tarred road, the best stuff > for cleaning the tar off his car was the Coke....... It's called citric acid. Whaddaya think orange juice would do for you? > It's called citric acid. Whaddaya think orange juice would do for you? Phosphoric Acid. Common uses are Coke and rust converter... SignaturePaul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. >> It's called citric acid. Whaddaya think orange juice would do for you? > > Phosphoric Acid. Common uses are Coke and rust converter... Sounds like my combination wallpaper paste and waffle batter....... >> It's called citric acid. Whaddaya think orange juice would do for >> you? > > Phosphoric Acid. Common uses are Coke and rust converter... This would explain that 'D' in Chemistry... =^{ >>Proof? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a freshly tarred road, the best stuff for cleaning the tar off his car was > the Coke....... May be so, but that's a far cry from "quite common for those working in mcdonalds" Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Its quite common for those working in mcdonalds to have their front two >> teeth corroded from the back to the front. its cos employees have free >> access to the coke and they drink through the straw. It literally >> corrodes them and it doesn't take that long either. > > Proof? What do you want a copy of the guys medical records? I also asked my own dentist about the mouth wash that help with bacteria and shifting plaque etc. The answer was save your money. So much for being clinically proven and approved by the dental association. > What do you want a copy of the guys medical records? No. This is like your other post about coke disolving teeth. Plain urban legend. You clain "It is quite common for those ..." but you don't quote your source of info. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> What do you want a copy of the guys medical records? > > No. This is like your other post about coke disolving teeth. Plain urban > legend. You clain "It is quite common for those ..." but you don't quote > your source of info. Someone who actually works there and consulted a dentist. It was his dentist that enlightened him. The dentist source were his own patients. Long term drinkers place the straw behind the back two teeth and hold there with the tongue. Hence all liquid flowing into the mouth passes over those two teeth. We aren't talking overnight either. We are talking full time employees after a year or so at least. occassional drinkers tend to put the straw further back in the mouth. This just behind the teeth is a bad habit produced by habitual drinkers who have free and unlimited access. Its not just the acid its the sugar. My nephew had a penshent (scuse spelling) for ribena. Sugar loaded. face full of fillings already. They've brought out 'tooth kind' now. Reduced sugar and altered the p.h. > Someone who actually works there and consulted a dentist. It was his So you go from "quite common for those ..." implying most employees to a single case. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Someone who actually works there and consulted a dentist. It was his > > So you go from "quite common for those ..." implying most employees to a > single case. implying most employees from a professional dentist source. yes quite common. Among those that can actually cope with working in McD's for a year. Granted not too many below management level. I imagine turnover is quite high. > Its all one big bastard company. Sugar water with enough acid to dissolve a > tooth in 24 hours flat. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tooth.asp OTOH, given the very high amount of sugar, it is foolhardy to drink more than the occasional coke. The docu-movie "Supersize me" is a good view about the ills of fast food and soft drinks. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a >>> photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Its all one big bastard company. Sugar water with enough acid to > dissolve a tooth in 24 hours flat. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp http://mckimsonconnection.com/CocaColaNail.htm http://www.breakawaymag.com/AllTheRest/A000000086.cfm It just ain't so. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia duit On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:57:45 GMT, in <Ji4Ee.21504$yP3.3704@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> said: >>> This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a >>> photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Its all one big bastard company. Sugar water with enough acid to dissolve a >tooth in 24 hours flat. That's a classic urban myth: <http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tooth.asp> SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > This is ridiculous, imagine you're out shooting pic's and you take a > photograph that this or that corp. doesn't like and you end up being > threatened with legal action. > > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1368F807-6F41-4C77-8785-EEFD71FAB4D4.htm Thuggery? From the article: "" "It's an infringement of our trademark, but we respect Haksar's right to creative expression and have been in discussions with him," said a Coke spokesman. "We hope to settle the issue amicably," he said. "" Doesn't sound like the usual "We do not comment on legal actions." or somesuch from most corporations. And the action is (as usual) over the _publishing_ of the image, not the taking of the image. IMO it would be fair use as well as free speech. As the legal action is in India, of course, Indian law will apply. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.