Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You certainly don't lose copyright protection of a photo you took because you were told not to do so. You just risk being thrown out of the venue or other legal trouble.



The musical performance is itself copyrighted, by definition. Reproducing part of it without permission is an infringement.


No part of the music being performed is reproduced in a photograph.


A music performance in front of an audience is audiovisual. You would be right if we were talking about a photograph of a radio taken while the performance was broadcast, but we're not. Indeed, when people mention they attended a concert, they say things like 'I went to see my favorite band last week,' as opposed to saying they went to listen to them.


HN shoots the messenger again, I see. I don't make the law, I just tell you about it:

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/summary_rome.html

wikimedia itself observes that shoting without a permit may put you in breach of a contract you signed when you purchased the ticket, as I alluded to above:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by...

...which is why publishers won't buy photographs without a signed release, such as this one:

http://images.tbd.com/entertainment/gaga-release.pdf


[deleted]


For sure, but that by itself doesn't provide a full defense (per http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). Bear in mind that if the ticket contractually forbids photography and the event is not in a publicly accessible venue, the issue might well be decided under contract rather than copyright law.


I'm not sure of this any more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8131785 (title "Extracting audio from visual information")


Photographs are not video.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: