Owners Of Old, Abandoned Hotel Threaten Guy Who Photographed It With Copyright Infringement
from the new-funding-strategy? dept
Alex alerts us to yet another case of someone abusing copyright law to threaten someone. The story begins with Sherman Cahal, who runs the awesome site AbandonedOnline.net, on which he posts photographs from abandoned buildings. He recently posted photographs of the Waldo Hotel in Clarksburg, West Virginia. As you can see at the link, he doesn't just put up photos, but a rather detailed history of the building itself. Then there are a bunch of exterior photos, interior photos and even some historic photos of the building. I have to admit that I'm a sucker for this kind of photography. Check out just this one shot of the lobby, and then click on the links above to see the rest:
No individual with the Vandalia Heritage Foundation has authorized the creation, publication or copyrights of these photos. If you believe this is in error, please forward the contractual agreement stating permission to create, publish and copyright photos of the Waldo Hotel interior and roof to the following mailing address:Later in the letter, they try to make things more "informal," but still remain pretty threatening:
ATTENTION LEGAL DEPARTMENT
{redacted}
In addition, you can forward the contractual agreement stating permission to create, publish and copyright photos of the Waldo Hotel interior and roof to the following email address:
{redacted}
We formally request that all unauthorized Waldo Hotel interior and roof photos be removed from the following websites unless evidence of previous permission to do such can be provided
Although still official, we would like to also address you in an informal tone. We understand that the articles associated with the Waldo Hotel on abandonedonline.net is in favor of preservation and revitalization of the property. And preservation and revitalization is what we do. However, there are multiple problems with the approach you decided to take. One, breaking and entering and/or trespassing was the only method by which these photos could have been taken. This costs us time, money, liability and security issues. Two, these photos are unauthorized and may contain content that damages efforts to save the hotel. Three, these photos are wrongly copyrighted by Sherman Cahal and it deprives us of our rights to profits or benefits. And similarly, four, these photos are being sold for personal gain on shermancahal.com which, again, deprives us of our rights to profits or benefits.The problem with all of this is that the claims on copyright are almost certainly complete bunk. The group seems to assume that because they own the building, they automatically hold the copyright on any photographs of the building. This is a common misconception. While you can copyright architecture, that copyright does not prevent photographs. Basically, the copyright claim is ridiculous.
Now obviously this is not a cease and desist letter from an attorney. And that�s not the route we want to take. Paying an attorney to handle this would cost us time and money that would be better focused on restoring the Waldo Hotel. But consider this a warning shot and we will pursue further action if these requests are ignored.
If you are willing to donate photos - that we officially sign off on - to the Waldo Hotel Preservation Society for fundraising and informational purposes, we support that.
Cahal seems to understand this, and gave the Vandalia Heritage Foundation a quick lesson in copyright law. He also notes that even the trespassing claim they have is pretty weak. Either way, after educating the Foundation on copyright law, the Foundation realized that perhaps it was making a mistake. What's amazing is that they thought this was an appropriate tactic in the first place. Threatening Cahal for publicizing the building they've been trying for years to raise money to renovate seems counterproductive. These kinds of photos provide more publicity and perhaps more interest in the possibility of restoring the building.
It's pretty frustrating when you hear these kinds of stories. Even though it turned out okay in the end, this is yet another symptom of "ownership society," where people misunderstand and abuse copyright law to threaten people who are expressing themselves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: building, copyright, restoration, waldo hotel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
Assuming that the statement is correct that the photographs could NOT have been taken without trespassing (and therefore we can assume not visible from a public place), then doesn't it follow that Cahal cannot have copyright on the photos he took illegally? I'm sorry, but something doesn't follow in this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it doesn't. Copyright is not affected by whether you had permission to be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are, unfortunately, exceptions. The Port Authority of NY/NJ asked me to not take photos of a bridge for one of my sites (http://www.bridgestunnels.com) for "security" reasons, and that they would need to hold my photographs and claim ownership if they wanted to release them back to me. I left and came back 20 minutes later to finish my work. But it's crap like that that really calls for a total revision of our copyright statues and laws, and to press for more journalistic and photographic freedoms that have been slowly ebbing away for years. Just my two cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/code.cfm?chap=61&art=3B
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright resides with the photographer whether that photographer took the pictures whilst doing something unlawful like trespass, which has to be proven, does not in any way mitigate the ownership of the copyright on the photos themselves.
The only reason ever that photographs can be held legally is for purposes of discovery (evidence) though they are still copyrighted to the photographer (Unless work for hire, and that is not in the case) and after the evidential/discovery process they have to be returned or the holder can be charged as above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In 2010, contractors for the Foundation removed metal piping and heating units throughout the buildings for money in order to jump start further repairs to the Waldo.
Unfortunately, it seems that the recession has led to little to no work being done on the Waldo.
so, its not exactly abandoned and he may be (i cant get them to load) showing pictures the reflect the 100k worth of repairs to the roof in a poor light, hampering further investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> 100k worth of repairs to the roof in a poor
> light
He's showing them in the light that was present in the room at the time. Whether it's poor or not is hardly his concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If a photograph is created by an illegal or unlawful act it is STILL copyrighted to the person who took it and no one can remove that copyright.
The only way for a photographer not to own copyright in a picture they took is if the photographer is acting as an agent for someone else ie: Work for Hire and the photo is a part of that contractual agreement.
An owner of a property can stop you taking pictures, but has no lawful ability to destroy ones already taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As to the trespassing charge, maybe he took the interior pictures through a broken window, and didn't go inside at all. Besides, does Vandalia own the building? If not I don't see where they have any standing to bring trespassing charges.
Claiming rights not granted by copyright law is copyright abuse, and is a prosecutable crime just as much as infringing someone else's copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photos not availavle from links/website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Photos not availavle from links/website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand
And having a legal argument creates even more interest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
Just because you buy a building, you do not repeat not hold the copyright monopoly to the building's drawings. The architect does that.
So not only are they wrong in the fact that photography is specifically not covered by the monopoly; they don't even hold the monopoly in the first place.
This kind of legal aggression seriously needs penalties. Today, it carries no risk at all, which is a huge legal problem. We're seeing speculative threatening and invoicing all over the board.
And why shouldn't we? It carries no risk at all.
Cheers,
Rick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
How? Just about all the legislators in this country at all level are lawyers. Get them to write a law penalizing their professional colleagues for being trolls? Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
Isn't that already illegal under fraud or some-such??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
Only that's not illegal, dumbass.
It's a civil offense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
'illegal' is only for criminal structures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
If this be so, how come every DVD you play displays a warning notice that you can get up to five years in prison and a zillion dollar fine for infringing the producer's copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
For civil there is the tort "abuse of process"
Both of them need the basic elements of
* Intentionally and maliciously making & following through (or getting some other authority to) a civil or criminal action, and
* The action MUST be without probable cause
* The action MUST be dismissed in favour of the respondent/defendant.
* The action MUST of caused injury/harm. Note: harm does NOT include harm to reputation though, that is covered by defamation already, it must be equitable (tangible) harm like loss of wages etc.
In other words do not "bear false witness" to others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
For civil there is the tort "abuse of process"
Both of them need the basic elements of
* Intentionally and maliciously making & following through (or getting some other authority to) a civil or criminal action, and
* The action MUST be without probable cause
* The action MUST be dismissed in favour of the respondent/defendant.
* The action MUST of caused injury/harm. Note: harm does NOT include harm to reputation though, that is covered by defamation already, it must be equitable (tangible) harm like loss of wages etc.
In other words do not "bear false witness" to others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
Also the building is under a condemnation order due to the current conditions (but is not in danger of being torn down)at this time.
also check out this link:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html
The CEO of Vandalia was well within her rights and I believe very fair towards Mr Cahal.
1. The photos are evidence of trespass.
2. The city of Clarksburg can press charges on their own without Vandalia's knowledge.
3. The CEO of Vandalia has worked with historic preservation on a Federal Level and knows what she is talking about.
4. She fairly gave Mr. Cahal a chance to present the paperwork that he may have in his possesion to show where he had permission to do this.
5. He is selling the pictures and is profiting from it, she also gave him an alternative to provide funds to the Waldo Hotel Historic Preservation Society to help with the preservation efforts.
6.If someone has commited a crime what has given them the right to profit from it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
2) Yes, Yes they can. What does that have to do with anything?
3) {{Citation Needed}}
4) Ok, so? This would relate to the ALLEGED trespass, and again has no bearing on the copyright of the pictures.
5) Your point? They are his pictures, he can do as he pleases. The problem is that it is implied that he should be reqired to support the Waldo Hotel Historic Preservation Society and/or help with the preservation efforts. This is not the case.
6) Nobody has yet proven in a court of law that a crime has even been comited. Also I could be wrong and IANAL but I do not belive that something as minor as tresspass would set of the "Son of Sam" laws I suppose that there is a posibilty of asset forfeiture, however that would result in the ownership of the pictures going to the government NOT to the Waldo Hotel Historic Preservation Society.
I am going to stop now before my rant runs out of control...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
No. There is *no* question of the copyright. The copyright clearly belongs to Mr. Cahal, as he was the person who took the pictures.
Irrelevant, appeal to authority. It cites no law, and the inclusion of weasel-words shows that whoever wrote that isn't 100% convinced of its accuracy.
They are evidence of *alleged* trespass. As there were no signs posted, and Mr. Cahal wasn't asked to leave, there was no trespass.
So then why did Vandalia send the email? Irrelevant bunk.
Appeal to authority, and irrelevant - "Federal" historic preservation does not require someone to know copyright law or *local* trespassing laws.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
So she made an attempt at extortion? That doesn't speak very highly of her.
Irrelevant bunk. There was no crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Architect, not the owners, hold the copyright monopoly here.
So? They're his pictures, not Vandalia's. He has the legal right to do whatever he wants with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, if the building itself is located in a public place, then the lawyers would have no standing to accuse Cahal of trespassing. I would assume that because the lawyers DID accuse Cahal of trespassing, the building is not a public building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it seemed odd to me too - but that does seem to be the wording. I think the actual intention of this is to distinguish a building from a sculpture or architectural model. After all just about any building is visible from space - which is the ultimate "public place".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/code.cfm?chap=61&art=3B
Also with building codes the state has adopted the "the national building codes" these are the codes that the city of Clarksburg uses. Code enforcement has condemed the building as it is unsafe. The condemnation order is posted at the front door and clearly states that no one can enter the premises, this is what gives Clarksburg presidence when they make an arrest for unauthorised individuals entering the building and they do not have to ask Vandalia's permission to arrest.
For someone to state that there were no trespassing signs is a misgiving on that person(s) part. Or even to say the building owner did not ask them to leave is another misgiving.
While I enjoy his photography and the story that he tells with his journalist photography, I can not endorse someone's methods such as this. When someone posted his link and photos on the Revive the Waldo Hotel facebook page, caused a flurry of people wanting to go into the building to clean the lobby, this damaged relationships with the City of Clarksburg, gave the newspaper the oppurtunity to publish very negative stories. An article and headlines in the newspaper warning of anyone's arrest if they went into the building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've already cited the Code, which clearly stated that it is not trespass if a) the occupant was not told to leave by the owner of the building, and b) if it was not witnessed that such a trespass actually occurred. You can't base your argument on circumstantial evidence - does it show trespass? No. Does it show entry? No. The door was wide open and there were no posted signs - and at most, with evidence, it is a $100 and less fine.
That's nothing.
If you have something more concrete - you know, that shows willing trespass and forced entry, then that is something. Until then, you have no case. (Plus, you aren't the owners - you represent a Facebook group.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also Vandals have been breaking into the building and stealing artifacts and such. still if they did not damage the building and someone entered the building it is still trespass.
And not I am not just a member of a facebook page, but, with an organization in the City of Clarksburg that is working to preserve the Waldo. Would you like the phone number to our prosecuter or police chief,,,,would be more than happy to it as they have the right to arrest and have warned people from entering the building and they do not have to have Laura's permission to do so. The building is under a condemantion order which gives the city presidence! But, please not the building is not in danger of being torn down at this time, but, the conditions warranted it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The front door was broken out in August and now are boarded up. The police department is patroling that area regularly now and will make an arrest. The order at the front door clearly states that no one is to enter due to condemnation. So let's set the facts straight!
As being a memeber of a FB page, yes. As a concerned citizen, yes. Has working with a group called the Waldo Hotel Preservation Society that is working Vandalia, well I am more in the know of what is going on than just being a member of a facebook page.
The evidence is not circumstantial in the way I look at it...you took pictures inside of the building, posted them, and now admit to being in the building back in June. Yet you state that the fence and posting of a sign is after the fact. Isn't this rather misleading? And what proof do you have to this being after the fact? We have plenty here....code enforcement building permits, newspaper articles, etc.
You stated on your page that you were in the same boat with Vandalia to save the Waldo Hotel. Not so when you started a smear campaign against Laura Kuhns and Vandalia on your facebook Abandoned page! It sounds like some sort of Vendetta to me. How is this going to help restore and market this historic building?
Let me say this old quote: "A picture can speak a thousand words!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I explained that in the original post and to Vandalia (which you are not a part of), which was agreed upon. Which is why this is a moot point - they aren't going ahead with any charges, and I am removing any prints that are for sale of the Waldo and in turn DONATING my prints (and funding) to YOUR foundation for use in upcoming fundraising.
I guess one did not speak to another - which is unfortunate, because that was what was conveyed to me in the phone call.
You know how to reach me. I am always more than willing to help your cause out, but if you are going to vilify me here, then my donations and money are out. I am not for sure why you are continuing down this path - read my original post and be sure to check back and see the commemorative print that has been designed (also discussed with Vandalia).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The red door is normally covered with the boarding that you see around the windows. It is part of the mothballing, for that wooden cover to be removed this meant that there were workers authorized to go in. Why it was unlocked I do not know as you never ran into them in the building. The front doors border 4th St. Recently, someone broke those windows and this is the reason it is now boarded up. I post this here to let everyone know where the misunderstanding could possibly be. You see I live here, so I know what it should look like. Plus those of us volunteering keep an eye on the building regularly, as well as the police department patroling regularly. I am very thankful that you were not injured while in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The windows on street level are boarded up so no pictures could have possibly been taken of the inside of the building as people see of the inside of the building. Some of the pictures are in the upstairs of the hotel and not visable from the outside.
The back of the building is fenced in due to vandalism and theft. People have repeatedly damaged the fence that encloses that area to enter the building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your feigned lament at the end about people who "misunderstand and abuse copyright law" is laughable since you are systematically one of the worst when it comes to misrepresenting copyright law. You're a fucking joke. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't have the right to speed. Nothing stops you from telling people about your experiences doing it though. He might not have the right to take those pictures, but nothing stops him from showing them once he has them.
In either case I'd like to see a citation that says he didn't have the right to take the pictures. He may not have had the right to be in the building (i.e. trespassing), but I don't know of any law that says he can't take pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if there were no signs stating trespass,and we know no one was there to inform the public they cannot enter, he is fine. If you can just walk into an unsecured space, then he is fine with copyright. he broke no laws, and violated no copyright.
Nameless trolls fail at legal analysis.
Troll more intelligently next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/code.cfm?chap=61&art=3B
(4) "Posted land" is that land upon which reasonably maintained signs are placed not more than five hundred feet apart along and at each corner of the boundaries of the land, upon which signs there appears prominently in letters of not less than two inches in height the words "no trespassing" and in addition thereto the name of the owner, lessee or occupant of the land. The signs shall be placed along the boundary line of posted land in a manner and in a position as to be clearly noticeable from outside of the boundary line. It shall not be necessary to give notice by posting on any enclosed land or place not exceeding five acres in area on which there is a dwelling house or property that by its nature and use is obviously private in order to obtain the benefits of this article pertaining to trespass on enclosed lands.
Your point is moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) The land or place must be less than 5 acres. Check, it's less than 5 acres so it might not be necessary.
2) by its nature and use is obviously private. Not necessarily check. It's nature is a hotel which are public, its use is abandoned. So it might be that a "No trespassing" sign was needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's something to keep in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes - but they have no rights over photgraphs you have already taken - all they can do is remove you from the premises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To go with your security in the mall example, they can be upset that you took pictures, and they can ask you to leave to prevent you from taking pictures, but the taking of the pictures and the permission to be on the property are separate issues. To my knowledge there is no law that states you cannot take pictures on private property. The owners of that property can keep you from doing that by keeping you out of the property, they can bar your entrance if you have a picture taking device, they can ask you to leave to keep you from taking more pictures, but that isn't law. The only law here is the trespassing issue, not the taking of the pictures issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The property was a hotel and therefore is a public space. By this law, they would be required to post "no trespassing" signs containing those words and the owner's name, lessee or occupant.
What does not seem to be mentioned by this section of the law is the situation whereby someone removes those signs leaving no evidence as to their prior existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/code.cfm?chap=61&art=3B
Plus the city of Clarksburg has their own posting on the building.
If you will notice in WV law there is the mention of fencing...the back of the building is fenced in with no gate! The way people have been entering the building to destroy, trespass, etc...clearly violates state law and the laws of Code Enforcement in the city of Clarksburg.
Plus, the last use by the former owner was not a hotel but low income housing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't matter if Clarksburg posted a notice. If it was not explicit, invisible, and not conforming to the code above from the state, then your statement is based purely on hearsay and pure wishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put simply, the lack of "No Trespassing" signs does not (by itself) allow you to enter a structure without permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 500 ft apart does not apply to buildings of this type, but, I believe when there is 5 acres or more. The building was last used as a hotel until the late 1960s or early 1970s. It was then sold to Salem College in the 70s and used as dorms for the Clarksburg Campus. The Arnett's bought the building and turned it into low income housing until they lost the building. Then the building was bought and then sold to Vandalia. When the recession hit, funding became sparse for the building and as you saw it when you were there it is suffering. As a landmark it is always referred to as the Waldo Hotel.
The sign posted by code enforcement follows the state laws under the "the national building codes" Therefore it does not apply to the No Tresspassing sign code that you quoted. This is not hearsay, but, fact. Neither is this pure wishing on my part. The sign is not invisable, but, posted at the front doors as required by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
while I appreciate your support for this idea, this statement is factually wrong and conflates 2 separate ideas that have nothing to do with each other legally.
-You are correct about the tresspass/security and whether he can legally enter or not.
-Which has zero to do with copyright. Breaking a tresspassing law does not automatically make one guilty of any copyright law, as the two laws cover different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No signs of "no trespassing" are not required for a private building. The building takes up the whole lot. Only the sidewalks around the building are public.
No he is not fine with what he did. he had no right to enter the premisses even if he "found" a way into the building. there fore he has no right to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CWVA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Photos
> to take pictures while on private property.
No one claimed they do. The photographer here may very well have committed a crime in obtaining his photos. However, that HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE COPYRIGHTS involved.
If he committed trespass, then the owners are free to press those charges and see him punished for it. But the copyright on a photograph will still remain with him.
Copyright rests with whoever takes the picture, regardless if they were committing some other crime while doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright rests with whoever takes the picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody said they do. The trespass issue is completely separate from the copyright issue. In your mad rush to criticise you've incorrectly conflated the two.
"You're a fucking joke. Seriously."
Yeah, that's pretty much what most people think about abusive commenters like you. Are you this much of an ass in real life or do you just have a big set of internet muscles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I never said they had an unlimited right to take photos. But I did say that the owner of the building does not have the copyright on those photos. And I stand by that.
You failed to explain anything otherwise.
On a separate note, it's pretty obvious who you are from your tone and word choices. It's funny that you think you're anonymous and then give it away by acting in the same foot-stomping, childish manner. What's the use of trying to hide your identity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DISH DISH DISh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, the hotel owner doesn't have the copyright on the images. But they do have the rights to their location, and only through permission would the photographer have normally been allowed inside to take images.
The images were taken by trespass, and therefore are the "fruit of the poisoned tree", if you want to say it that way. I doubt he has a location release for the images.
I would say the hotel owners are being nice, they could have legally drilled him a new eye hole and they would have won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fruit of the poisoned tree is a legal doctrine referring to the admissability of evidence - it has no direct connection with this situation.
The hotel owners are not being nice - they are backing down because they don't have a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fucking douchebag. You just got owned.
"Looking to purchase prints of these beautiful abandonments for your home or office? Check out shermancahal.com, where I offer photographic prints of abandonments and more from 5x7 to 24x30. Digital copies are also available, as well as custom printing options!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And he is NOT using them to promote anything other than the original photograph (or copies of such).
So any more hair brained thoughts and idiocy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In total 4 reasons they have no claim
2. Owning the building confers no status in respect to the architectural copyright (the architects heirs would own that if it still existed)
3. Claims on the architecture don't affect copyright on photographs of the building.
4. Having the legal right to be there has no effect on copyright (If JK Rowling wrote part of Harry Potter whilst fare dodging on the London Underground it wouldn't give her copyrights to Boris Johnson!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In total 4 reasons they have no claim
If the views within the image are from a position whereby the public could reasonably be expected to have access to take the pictures, then the photographer could claim copyright. If not, then no, he could not.
So the question comes down to whether the pictures in question could have been taken from a public vantage point. Considering the state of the building and the hazards clearly evident, I would hope not, but not being near the hotel, I cannot tell if the current owners have taken necessary steps to prevent trespassing.
But in a nutshell, your argument that "the building architecture is out of copyright" is spurious and irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In total 4 reasons they have no claim
The copyright of these images lies with the photographer.
If the views within the image are from a position whereby the public could reasonably be expected to have access to take the pictures, then the photographer could claim copyright. If not, then no, he could not.
Not true. Being on the premises is a trespassing issue - it does not affect the copyright in any way.
This point has been made multiple times by multiple commenters on this post. If you read copyright law you will see that nowhere does it give any rights to anyone because they own a piece of physical property. Copyright always lies with the creator of a work unless and until he assigns it to someone else.
For example the copyright in a painting lies with the artist. Owning a picture does not establish copyright. If you own a painting but (as is usually the case) the artist retains copyright he can break into your, take a picture of the painting (which you are not entitled to do!) and he owns the copyright in the resulting photograph (you may still be able to sue him for tresapass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proof of negligence
it forces the question of what has been done with the $$ already raised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pics are gone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pics are gone
http://www.abandonedonline.net/commercial/waldo-hotel/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as stated, copyrights are not affected by trespass. /thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its not copyright that is the problem
Its understandable that since it has been left to decay he may have not considered this. I really started to turn off from photography when during my studies we got to copyright, model/property releases, I remember one student who took a shot of a huge tree, he was not allowed to submit his work as he was supposed to track down the owner of the land and get a property release for the tree. I just thought this ridiculous, but it was the proper procedure.
I think this is the mistake the building owners made, quoting copyright rather than release. (really takes all the fun and spontaneity out of a days shoot)
Copyright lies with the photographer, but without the release there is a chance of being sued for publishing the images. Trespass laws differ depending where you are, I'm in Scotland and the law is much more relaxed than it is in England, if there is already a hole in the fence or railings around a property and you cause no damage then there is no charge, but you can be done in England for just sitting on someones wall. I'm sure the law elsewhere differs in much the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: its not copyright that is the problem
> have made inquires as to ownership of it and
> obtained a property release
Says who? Certainly not the law in America (where these photos were taken).
> I remember one student who took a shot of a
> huge tree, he was not allowed to submit his
> work as he was supposed to track down the
> owner of the land and get a property release
> for the tree
I don't know why someone would say he was 'supposed' to do that. The law certainly doesn't require it.
> but without the release there is a chance of
> being sued for publishing the images
Sue based on what? In order to successfully sue (or even make a prima facie showing that will survive summary judgment), you have to show that your claim is somehow based in law. What law says I can't publish a picture of a tree without its owner's permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
Actually, i'ts pretty much the same after a quick search on google, here is US equivalent:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
As a photographer you would get one as evidence that there are unlikely to be complaints from 3rd parties when you sell the photo on for publication.
However you absolutely do not need one - otherwise there would be no paparazzi!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
If that was the case, I'd need to sign a waiver for every event I photographed. Or for every building I've shot interiors for. Or for every detail photographed on private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
> quick search on google, here is US equivalent
None of that says a release is required. All it says is that it's something you might want to do to indemnify yourself against someone suing you, but the law doesn't require it. Nor does the law give the owner of a building or a tree a cause of action if you don't obtain a release first. They can sue you anyway, but it will be their burden to prove you've breached some kind of duty and since the law doesn't impose any such duty, it will be an awful hard case for them to prove.
However, lawsuits are time-consuming and expensive to defend even when you are completely in the right, so that's why those releases are touted as a good idea even if they're not legally required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: its not copyright that is the problem
Unlike what the connotation of the word 'commercial' means to most people, in the context of copyright it means something totally different.
In copyright (in this case a photograph) commercial usage is the means of using a photograph to advertise, promote, or otherwise influence someone to do something else for commercial purposes.
This means if he was using the photograph to advertise the building, or to promote a book he was writing on the building then both those examples would be for commercial use.
If on the other hand he sells it to an art gallery, places it online for sale by itself or part of a collection, or in any other way shape or form then it in NOT commercial usage and does not require a 'property release'.
Though this doesn't mean you shouldn't get a property release since then you really cannot be charged for trespass since you were authorised, also its just good business practice for professional and amateur photographers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
"Looking to purchase prints of these beautiful abandonments for your home or office? Check out shermancahal.com, where I offer photographic prints of abandonments and more from 5x7 to 24x30. Digital copies are also available, as well as custom printing options!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
No promotion of something else other than the photograph, or copies (whether singly or in a collection) is there therefore NOT commercial purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
I wouldn't bother to get a formal "property release" in this type of case - but asking permission is generally a good idea (if you think you will get it). Most people will be reasonable and may well help to facilitate access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
So as far as I can tell...this was used for commercial purposes.
"Looking to purchase prints of these beautiful abandonments for your home or office? Check out shermancahal.com, where I offer photographic prints of abandonments and more from 5x7 to 24x30. Digital copies are also available, as well as custom printing options!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: its not copyright that is the problem
Have I done something to offend you in some way? IF so please tell me so I and others can do it over and over again.
You amuse me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've experience a similar run-in
When I mentioned that as a US Post Office, it was a public building, he told me that they Post Office only rents from him and that no one has the right to take photos without his permission.
My spouse then mentioned that people in the area have been known to carry firearms and weren't keen on outsiders, especially Northerners, I figured that it was time to cease work and get the heck out of the neighborhood. It probably didn't help any that I also had "Yankee" license plates on my car.
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good manners, perhaps
I take lots of photos of buildings exteriors (as art) and never dreamed of asking for copyright permission. You can not copyright an object or a location.
So, I agree that their fairly good natured threats are pointless. If anything it highlights that they need to raise more funds for restoration and it is journalism.
It is not evidence of trespass. That amounts to heresay. Maybe someone opened the door for him and gave him permission to be there or the door was missing. They would have to catch him in the act to prove that. And he could just remove himself.
Indeed, in mad old Britain, the Government intend to revise squatting laws that allow uninhabited buildings to be occupied by residents and the police (currently) have very limited powers to remove them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good manners, perhaps
Indeed an artistic (staged) performance would attract copyright. A sporting event would not however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: good manners, perhaps
A performer certainly can rule it out, and in theatre they often disallow it completely. But rock concerts, youtube, etc - so many precedents ...
Photos of fashion is another interesting question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"A property release says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don�t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property � and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people � you are safer if you get a release."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the real world they exist.
Therefore you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"A property release says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don�t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property � and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people � you are safer if you get a release."
And what law are you quoting? Note that even what you are quoting does not specifically refer to copyright, and merely says "you are safer."
So, please tell me which law says the owner of the building holds the copyright on the photos taken in the building. If you can't, will you admit that I wasn't "completely wrong"? I doubt it. Go figure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that it would apply here, but I can envision an extreme set of facts where the photographer would not be able to claim ownership of copyright under the doctrine of a "constructive trust". Clearly, though, if the doctrine was ever to be applied the underlying facts would truly be exreme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ack.. shades of hypothetical deja vu from law school. You are an evil evil person, or a law professor! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not quite right. The photographer could be deprived of his copyright (or the proceeds of it) at some later time by a court - but he would retain it until the court had made the ruling.
So "would not be able to claim ownership" goes beyond what the law could allow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is correct, however, to say that this is a highly unusual form of relief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice to discuss with someone who has an eye for the detail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then again, when has TD ever agreed with laws. I mean, c'mon, stealing copyrighted materials is just a manifestation of someone else's business model. DUH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you knew that didn't you? You must since you agree with all laws, you must know all elements of every statute and common law principle and all defences of said laws too.
Though talking about manifestations, seems your brain has manifested it's own reality system. It's amusing.. do carry on dribbling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I totally agree with you except of course you do not need to break in - because you will find that the Louvre does not object to you taking pictures of the Mona Lisa - since the painting is in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Participation in this site is just a way to try to excise their bitterness from always feeling inferior to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does it feel to be a complete fucking moron?
"Looking to purchase prints of these beautiful abandonments for your home or office? Check out shermancahal.com, where I offer photographic prints of abandonments and more from 5x7 to 24x30. Digital copies are also available, as well as custom printing options!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The answer to this question can interestingly only be answered by yourself.
So? Enquiring minds would like to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Looking to purchase prints of these beautiful abandonments for your home or office? Check out shermancahal.com, where I offer photographic prints of abandonments and more from 5x7 to 24x30. Digital copies are also available, as well as custom printing options!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Author
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reply
Further, the clause about the owner requesting that you leave only pertains to cases where you were initially "authorized, licensed or invited", which you apparently were not.
In other words, you have not removed any doubt that you are "free from any future prosecution on those specific charges". In fact, you've undoubtedly admitted that you are in fact guilty of trespassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reply
Chapter 61, Article 3B, �61-3B-1
""Posted land" is that land upon which reasonably maintained signs are placed not more than five hundred feet apart along and at each corner of the boundaries of the land, upon which signs there appears prominently in letters of not less than two inches in height the words "no trespassing" and in addition thereto the name of the owner, lessee or occupant of the land."
"Where lands are posted, cultivated or fenced as described herein, then such lands, for the purpose of this article, shall be considered as enclosed and posted."
"Any person who knowingly enters in, upon or under a structure or conveyance without being authorized, licensed or invited, or having been authorized, licensed or invited is requested to depart by the owner, tenant or the agent of such owner or tenant, and refuses to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars."
Note the second half of that statement. Then,
"It is an unlawful trespass for any person to knowingly, and without being authorized, licensed or invited, to enter or remain on any property, other than a structure or conveyance, as to which notice against entering or remaining is either given by actual communication to such person or by posting, fencing or cultivation."
No notice, no deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
�61-3B-1. Definitions.
As used in this article:
(1) "Structure" means any building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.
...
�61-3B-2. Trespass in structure or conveyance.
Any person who knowingly enters in, upon or under a structure or conveyance without being authorized, licensed or invited, or having been authorized, licensed or invited is requested to depart by the owner, tenant or the agent of such owner or tenant, and refuses to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
If there is refusal, that's a misdemeanor of less than $100 fine.
The other bit I posted is in direct relation to the signage, and the lack of. If there is no posted signage on the land - which includes the structure, then the case just becomes that much weaker.
(Plus, to keep this short, I quoted what you wrote in a prior reply and in my reply on the site. So yes, the point has been made.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
I understand it completely. Obviously you don't understand the preceding "or having been authorized, licensed or invited" part. Were you "authorized, licensed or invited"? If not, then the rest of that statement is not relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
The part you post about "posted land" is only a definition, as was what I posted about structure. A definition is used to clarify wording of the statute.
"�61-3B-2. Trespass in structure or conveyance" does not use the term "posted land"; however, it does use the term "structure". The definition of "posted land" does not come into play when interpreting �61-3B-2, as that section does not use the term "posted land" within it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
And if you were never told to leave the land, did you trespass?
According to the state code, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
If you trespassed onto private property, this case being the Waldo, and there was no signage mentioning of no trespass posted 500' apart, with letters that are +2" high, and clearly visible, did you trespass?
And if you were never told to leave the Waldo, did you trespass?
According to the state code, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
On both counts, yes, you trespassed. I've explained the difference between the two scenarios more than once. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and is spelled out quite clearly in the laws both you and I have posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Owners of Old Abandoned Hotel
Anyone caught in the building or entering the building are subject to arrest by the Clarksburg Police Department. I am not saying this to offend anyone, but, pointing out the facts.
It was after the city brought in a engineering firm and Vandalia brought one in that it was decided to remove the radiator heating system due to the weight of these causing stress on the floors. Therefore the boilers in the basement were removed and the money from that is going to pay the back property taxes. This current recession has delayed and caused severe financial hardship on Vandalia. Therefore the Waldo Historic Preservation Society has formed and we are working to help Vandalia with preserving the hotel.
The building is in a mothball stage and we are working with Vandalia to further protect this historic structure in our city. One of our main goals is to help with additional mothballing. The roof is one of our major concerns.
The interior pictures were taken from inside of the building and these areas are not viewable from the outside of the building. So for Mr Cahal to enter the building and take pictures to me is evident of trespass not only on Vandalia's part, but, also on the City of Clarksburg's part from the condemnation order.
You can follow us on Facebook Save the Waldo Hotel Clarksbug WV US and are more than welcome to join and comment on the page.
A web page is currently under development for The Waldo Hotel Preservation Society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Owners of Old Abandoned Hotel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pt. Lobos Lone Pine (tree) - "don't shoot me!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any person who knowingly enters in, upon or under a structure or conveyance without being authorized, licensed or invited, or having been authorized, licensed or invited is requested to depart by the owner, tenant or the agent of such owner or tenant, and refuses to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars.
If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon while in the structure or conveyance, with the unlawful and felonious intent to do bodily injury to a human being in said structure or conveyance at the time the offender knowingly trespasses, such offender shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section one, article seven, chapter sixty-one of this code, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or be confined in the county jail for a period not to exceed twelve months, or both such fine and imprisonment.'
I'll break this down for people who can't read.
'Any person who knowingly enters in, upon or under a structure or conveyance...'
Refer to the definitions of structure and conveyance, as defined in "�61-3B-1. Definitions"
As used in this article:
(1) "Structure" means any building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.
(2) "Conveyance" means any motor vehicle, vessel, railroad car, railroad engine, trailer, aircraft or sleeping car, and "to enter a conveyance" includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance.
'without being authorized, licensed or invited'
'or having been authorized, licensed or invited is requested to depart by the owner, tenant or the agent of such owner or tenant, and refuses to do so'
Here is obviously where you are having trouble. The law is stating that the owner, tenant or "agent of such owner" has to request that you leave ONLY if you had been initially authorized, licensed or invited. If you were never authorized, licensed or invited in the first place, you are guilty of trespass regardless of whether anybody tells you anything.
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars.
If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon while in the structure or conveyance, with the unlawful and felonious intent to do bodily injury to a human being in said structure or conveyance at the time the offender knowingly trespasses, such offender shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section one, article seven, chapter sixty-one of this code, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or be confined in the county jail for a period not to exceed twelve months, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Within the tags is the ENTIRE BODY of �61-3B-2, titled "Trespass in structure or conveyance". There is no mention of no trespassing signs, posted land, etc.
Based on what you've said, you have clearly admitted violating �61-3B-2.
Your arguments are valid arguments against being charged with �61-3B-3, titled "Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance". That is the section of statute that deals with no trespassing signs, posted land, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh...
Vandalia is not claiming copyright, the photographer is! They cannot let him claim copyright to something they own, or it could be taken as abandonment of rights to the building.
There is no $700,000 owed on the building. The taxes were paid by a law firm in Charleston, and Vandalia has until May to pay them $5500 to redeem it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh...
Speaking of Uh... You aren't making any sense here. He is claiming copyright to the photos in which he took, which, to the best of my knowledge, he has. He is not claiming ownership of the building, the land it is on, etc.
However, his ability to use those photographs for "commercial use" (which is not the same as "advertising") seems to be in question. Had he simply posted them to a blog, I think the only repercussions could be charges of trespassing. However, selling prints of those photographs and/or posting them on a "blog" that asks for "donations" apparently falls into different (albeit vague) legal grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh...
I'm not for sure what the above is claiming. I never claimed "ownership" or "copyright " of the building itself - that's just silly and was never stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh...
You are really confused aren't you? I can't comment about your state's trespass laws - although I note that others here seem to disagree with you.
A little education is in order:
1) Copyright does not have to be "claimed" it automatically applies. The law is quite clear the photographer has the copyright.
2) The abandonment argument is a trademark issue. Trademark and copyright are quite distinct legal concepts. There is NO trademark issue here - so your raising of the "abandonment" issue is nonsense.
3) Ownership of the physical structure is completely separate from, and unaffected by any copyright or trademark issues.
Your statement "They cannot let him claim copyright to something they own, or it could be taken as abandonment of rights to the building." is so wrong in so many ways that it is a strong contender to be the biggest load of nonsense that I have ever seen in my life!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh...
Can you be specific? Or are you referring to:
"1705.09 EMERGENCY MEASURES.
(a) Imminent Danger. When, in the opinion of the Building Inspector or his
designated representative, there is imminent danger of failure or collapse of a building or
structure which endangers life, or when any structure or part of a structure has fallen and life
is endangered by the occupation of the structure, or when there is actual or potential danger to
the building occupants or those in the proximity of any structure because of explosives,
explosive fumes or vapors or the presence of toxic fumes, gases or materials, or operation of
defective or dangerous equipment, the Building Inspector or his designated representative is
hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the premises
forthwith. The Building Inspector or his designated representative shall cause to be posted at
each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: "This Structure Is Unsafe and Its
Occupancy Has Been Prohibited by the Building Inspector." It shall be unlawful for any person
to enter such structure except for the purpose of securing the structure, making the required
repairs, removing the hazardous condition or of demolishing the same."
With no such signs posted months ago (remember, this happened earlier this year), then any claim of violation is bogus. There would need to be direct evidence that such signage, as indicated other with the "No Trespassing" signs, existed. Without the burden of proof from the prosecutor, of evidence of both signage from earlier this year, then no claim can be made in a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh...
it makes the conversation seem contrived when you further it yourself under different monikers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But as uncovered by two watchdog organizations, the Vandalia Heritage Foundation may be corrupt, with political ties to a former representative that led a disgraced office."
Ummm...maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sound like Apple....there's no antennae issue, but here's a free bumper anyway. You have no legal obligation to obtain consent..but it's a good idea anyway....yah man...totally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how you handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how you handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWO the vandalia has no right to the photos there was not a NO TRESPASS sign however the building is condemned!
If they were able to get anything pinned to him it would be a simple tresspass ticket and the CITY (who they feel has done nothing but block their efforts) would reap the benifits of the fine. He still would retain ownership of his photos.
Its really funny that initially the group used his photos to show the interior of the building and how beautiful it still was. To me it looks like they are trying to find a way to rais funds fast by threatening to file a frivilous law suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to hash on old topics but it wouldn't matter the video clearly shows them giving him access to the property. They unlocked the door to the building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]