Yes, I have but I can't find info there that supports what you stated. Maybe I haven't searched properly. Maybe you can point out where in its website are your following statements supported:
- That at a public fashion runway show where organiser doesn't stop photographers from shooting, if you take photos need permission, or if you sell the photos need permission.
- At the same show, need to also get permission from the clothes vendor.
- Any stranger that you take a photo of on the street has the legal right to stop you from using the photo.
Shopping centre is own and manage by a management team... and shopping centre is not a public area... it is still consider as "property". Just like, if you visit someone else house, a person has every reason to not allow you to take pictures. very simple argument and very simple property law. There are different law govern different thing and IPOS is just a guideline.
True, a shopping centre's management can restrict certain activities, but if you care to re-read the original post, the OP said it was an open event that did not restrict photography, so your example here is irrelevant.
Similar incident with the music copyright... years and years and years, we all know that you can't use the music without paying if it is play in public... people do it, now they get fine for that because the official decide to take action. Same argument like, eh, but I own the CD... I can do what I like... is it really?
Actually, your analogy here does not support your statement at all. You can "own" or hold the CD but still not own the copyright in the music on the CD. Just like your client can have prints or softcopies of the photos you took, but you can still hold the copyright and dictate how the client can or cannot use or reproduce the photos. The copyright holder is the one who controls how others can use the work, unless he has some related contractual obligations or the photos were commissioned.
So if you take photos at a public fashion show together with a whole bunch of other photographers without any restrictions placed on you, why would you be restricted from selling the photos?
Really? have you heard of defamation cases?
I am pretty sure the word "as far as I know" don't hold in court if you sell a picture of someone and that person decide to take an action against you based on defamation... if the basis is strong enough.
Better be careful with your assumption.
In real world, you can't assume anything... and i believe in NS, there is a saying... you think, you thought, who confirm?
Hart
Yes, I have heard of defamation cases and I can't see how it can be applicable in this context. I wonder though whether you really know what it is? Do you any idea at all whether a stranger has any grounds at all on which to sue you for defamation if you take a photo of him and use it? If not, you shouldn't carry on with these statements.
You seem to have a good intention to advise forummers here to be careful in what they do, however, some of your statements appear to be without any support or basis and some are just wrong. And I think that is a disservice to the readers, however well-intentioned you are.
Nothing personal here, just stating things as I see them.
Peace.