My first run in with copyright / trademark issues with architecture

[unfocused]

I would echo the comments and advice of Private and others.

There seems to be a key statement that you are overlooking:

All vendors must have a license from our licensing agency in order to sell any image of the college. We ask that you remove the photos from your website until you have become a licensed vendor of the college.

In plain English, this means the college has signed a contract with a third party to review and approve anything connected with the college that might have a financial value: the college's name, logo, sports mascot, buildings, etc. etc. This licensing entity reviews any request to use any of these items and secure a percentage of the profits for the college. One aspect of this is that the agreement with the college probably requires the college to take necessary steps to protect the value of the college's image.

Strictly speaking, they could argue that when you post an image to Facebook that anyone can copy and redistribute, you are diminishing the value of the items they sell. Why, for example, would someone pay for a poster of the library and fountains, when they can copy your picture off of the Canon Rumors Forum, resize it and create their own poster? In that case, it doesn't matter that you aren't selling the image, what matters is that you have appropriated it and are diminishing the revenue stream they can receive.

This is something that people often get confused about when it comes to copyright. Copyright is a commercial protection designed to protect the revenue stream of the copyright holder. Any use of copyrighted material that diminishes the revenue stream can be a copyright violation, whether or not you are personally profiting from the use of the copyrighted item.

The fact that they are using a third party to license products would make me very nervous. The college may not have the resources, or the desire, to pursue a copyright infringement suit. But the company that holds the licensing agreement does this for a living and they almost certainly have access to a squadron of lawyers who are only too ready to protect the value of their clients' property.

Chalk it up to experience and let it go.

 

[yorgasor]

I would echo the comments and advice of Private and others.

There seems to be a key statement that you are overlooking:

All vendors must have a license from our licensing agency in order to sell any image of the college. We ask that you remove the photos from your website until you have become a licensed vendor of the college.

In plain English, this means the college has signed a contract with a third party to review and approve anything connected with the college that might have a financial value: the college's name, logo, sports mascot, buildings, etc. etc. This licensing entity reviews any request to use any of these items and secure a percentage of the profits for the college. One aspect of this is that the agreement with the college probably requires the college to take necessary steps to protect the value of the college's image.

Strictly speaking, they could argue that when you post an image to Facebook that anyone can copy and redistribute, you are diminishing the value of the items they sell. Why, for example, would someone pay for a poster of the library and fountains, when they can copy your picture off of the Canon Rumors Forum, resize it and create their own poster? In that case, it doesn't matter that you aren't selling the image, what matters is that you have appropriated it and are diminishing the revenue stream they can receive.

This is something that people often get confused about when it comes to copyright. Copyright is a commercial protection designed to protect the revenue stream of the copyright holder. Any use of copyrighted material that diminishes the revenue stream can be a copyright violation, whether or not you are personally profiting from the use of the copyrighted item.

The fact that they are using a third party to license products would make me very nervous. The college may not have the resources, or the desire, to pursue a copyright infringement suit. But the company that holds the licensing agreement does this for a living and they almost certainly have access to a squadron of lawyers who are only too ready to protect the value of their clients' property.

Chalk it up to experience and let it go.

This is why I have asked the school specifically what their rules are and whether they want me to remove the photos from Facebook and Flickr too. I will post an update on what they say. So far, I haven't heard anything from them since the first email I've received from their marketing dept. They do have admin control on the Facebook thread on their alumni page. They removed my friend's post that included a link to the SmugMug page, but they did not remove that person's post with the pictures, which they clearly have the ability to do.

As for copyright, the law clearly states that buildings have no copyright protection if they were built before 1990. You can't copyright anything just because you make money from it. The laws are meant to balance the rights of owners with those of the public. And even though corporations have been bribing congress for years to continually tilt that balance to the favor of the corporations (google the Mickey Mouse law), they can't apply the new architectural copyright laws on buildings built before the law was passed.

 

[Tinky]

My take, not being a lawyer, not being in your jurisdiction, not being a professional photographer...

..but being a full-time professional film-maker..

If a client commissions me for a job I charge an amount I am happy with for that job and count on no future income from that job.

They want the use of my skills and my gear then they own what I produce.

They accept by email my terms of delivery and then that's it. Anything I make whilst on their time is theirs.
My terms usually include that I can share links from their public pages for showreel purposes. I give them a master optical disc and recommend a duplicator. Once they've signed off on the job that's it. Onto the next one.

If they come back looking for a re-edit in six months time, then thats chargable extra. If they want me to pull rushes from archive for some purpose, thats a chargable extra, technical process, time, etc. But I don't expect the job to keep on paying now and forever.

I think it is is a bit cheeky to charge for my time then charge again, and again, and again, again. They've paid you to take images of a set event. You went off remit during your authorised access. You are now being slightly disingenuous by hoping to make an additional buck.

The law in the UK is quite clear under the copyrights and patents act 2000. When you commission any work or are commissioned to perform any work the photographer / creator owns the work UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED BY CONTRACT. Smart clients have you accept their terms that they own the work.

I think that seems fair. The law is designed to stop creatives getting ripped off. Charge a decent rate and rescind your rights. Have a line agreed with the client that you can use the work for showreel purposes.

Don't scrabble about for internet sales on work done on somebody elses clock. It's unprofessional and grubby.
And your white balance needs a little work.

 

[takesome1]

I was invited to a private girl's college to photograph a play by the director.


The Food Lion case is interesting as well. People got jobs at Food Lion specifically to do an expose on how Food Lion handles food unsafely. They had permission to be at the store, but they did not have permission to photograph things. In particular, they gained permission through fraudulent pretenses. They were found guilty and charged $1 in fines.

Legal advice or moral advice which do you want. Looks like you were invited to take pictures at an event that was public. I doubt they have much of a legal footing. For that mater they would have to prove damages, and they have none.

However it is interesting you pointed out Food Lion. That happened over 20 years ago, Food Lion was booming and the construction company I headed was working on multiple stores as a subcontractor when that series came out. Food Lion went from mass expansion to no growth in a matter of months. The stores we helped build never even opened. Food Lion lost millions, but the people taking those photos had set out to bring Food Lion down. I do not know if you are correct on the $1, but if they can cost a company millions and only get a $1 fine just how much do you think you will be penalized for selling a few shots of building that looks nice.

 

[Nitroman]

Yet again, this is a fine example of how everyone else wants to have a bite of the cake before you do and photographers are left fighting for the left over crumbs.

I can't imagine you're making a fortune from the sale of this image but legally, yes, you would IMO need an official release if it were to go to court.

It's a huge shame that we live in such a litigation society where hard graft and enterprise does not seem to be rewarded. Sign of the times i'm afraid. I suggest a career at McDonalds where you'll even get a pension and sick pay. ;D

 

[yorgasor]

*snip*

I think it is is a bit cheeky to charge for my time then charge again, and again, and again, again. They've paid you to take images of a set event. You went off remit during your authorised access. You are now being slightly disingenuous by hoping to make an additional buck.

*snip*

Don't scrabble about for internet sales on work done on somebody elses clock. It's unprofessional and grubby.
And your white balance needs a little work.

I was there doing a favor for the director. There was no contract, no pay, and I was all on my own time. After doing the shoot, I saw a pretty building and took a couple pictures. I shared them with a friend who shared them with the alumni and they came asking me for prints. I wasn't out looking to gouge anyone or line my pockets with millions. I was just trying to be helpful.

 

[unfocused]

These threads appear periodically on this site.

Photographer pushes the envelope. Photographer gets in trouble. Photographer starts a thread ostensibly to get other opinions. Forum participants give their opinions which are not in agreement with photographer. Photographer wants to argue the point. Turns out he/she wasn't really seeking opinions, but wanted affirmation that he/she is in the right. Photographer gets ticked off at forum participants.

Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

Clearly you disagree with the opinion of most of the people responding to your thread. It appears we aren't going to persuade you and you clearly aren't going to persuade us.

 

[yorgasor]

These threads appear periodically on this site.

Photographer pushes the envelope. Photographer gets in trouble. Photographer starts a thread ostensibly to get other opinions. Forum participants give their opinions which are not in agreement with photographer. Photographer wants to argue the point. Turns out he/she wasn't really seeking opinions, but wanted affirmation that he/she is in the right. Photographer gets ticked off at forum participants.

Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

Clearly you disagree with the opinion of most of the people responding to your thread. It appears we aren't going to persuade you and you clearly aren't going to persuade us.

I haven't been ticked off at anybody and have been civil in all comments and responses, even to those that attack my credibility and motives. I'm not looking for opinions on whether I was right or wrong. What I have done was researched the laws and court cases on copyright, trademark, and trespassing and applied it to this specific situation. I'm pretty sure about my interpretation of copyright and trademark laws, and so far no one has pointed to other court cases, laws, or legal articles that discredit my interpretation of them. If you find something, I would love to review it and see how it applies to this situation.

What I haven't found a whole lot of legal information on is trespassing and photography. I could widen my search to trespassing in general, and see what I can find. I was hoping people in this forum had specific knowledge on this and could provide more insight. There have been some opinions posted, and some people have mentioned their experiences working under contract. Contract law is entirely different, and the terms set in the contract would potentially override rights given to the common man, and lays out what they get in return, or what they must do. If I become a licensed vendor for the school, there would likely be certain rules I need to follow that others don't have. I'm more interested in situations where a person is walking around taking pictures, whether he could get in trouble for it, or when his rights to use those pictures are reduced.

In an effort to distance the discussion from any emotional discussion, I posted earlier a pair of simpler theoretical scenarios to further the discussion on trespassing and photography. I'd love to hear some of the community's position on those, and either reasoning or citations supporting those positions.

 

[jd7]

To the extent trespass is the issue, seems clear the OP had a licence to come on to the premises. The question is whether the licence extended to permitting him to take the photos he did. If it did not, he became a trespasser when he took the photos.

That said, the school will no doubt say now the licence didn't extend to the OP taking the photos because with the benefit of hindsight that is what they would have said if they had specifically turned their minds to it. That doesn't necessarily decide he question of what the scope of the licence actually was.

From a practical perspective though, PBD's answer may well be the most pragmatic and sensible. If it was me though I'd be tempted to work out whether what they claim really stacks up and if not, tell them to go jump!

It does stack up. He was there with a specific brief and on private property to conduct that brief. It's "white list" as opposed to "black list". If had taken it from public space, then reasonably ok. He didn't so unless the States has some wacky interpretation, then I don't see where the argument is.

The OP has, no doubt innocently, taken shots of the building as it is photogenic.

If no one had been interested in purchasing, and the college had asked him to take them down, he probably would have complied....

It's because there is now a value to those shots that he wants to see if he can find a way to make money from his talent without registering.

We don't know if it stacks up. You'd have to know the details of all communications the OP had with the college before he took the photos and all of the other circumstances. Let's not forget the context here is photos of a college, not photos inside a top secret research lab or military installation. Anyway, we don't have enough info to know the answer (and I don't expect to see that sort of detail I a web forum).

 

[jd7]

Here is my 2 cents as I have done a lot of commercial architecture work... Any time your on public lands, you are safe to do as you see fit, BUT, increasingly professional photographers are being targeted by the police citing the need for city permits to take photos on public land... so, if you can get the shot done without drawing attention to yourself, all the better. Anytime your on private property, then you run the risk of trademark and licensing and other claims to your work. If you want to show off the buildings on your personal pages, websites, etc to show off your skills, you have a case saying you own copyright, and in those cases, it's almost easier to do it and apologize later... Getting permission before hand, especially to a new vendor, can almost be like pulling teeth. And maybe if you sweetly come back to them with your final work, showing the best of the best that you can do of their property, maybe offering them a few complimentary wall prints, you can sweet talk your way into getting a fast track pass into being a new vendor. But selling the prints and then asking for more may have rubbed a few feathers the wrong way if you know what i mean.

When on private property, trespass becomes an issue. And it comes down to whether you had permission (express or implied) to be there and to take the photos you took. If you were trespassing, the photos were taken in breach of the law and, generally speaking, you aren't entitled to keep or use the photos. Note that it doesn't matter whether you are using them for private or for commercial purposes - you aren't titled to keep them. (In a practical sense, if you only use them privately then much chance the property owner finds out, or would be motivated enough to do anything about it.)

Regarding copyright, that is a potential issue whether trespassing or not.
The first question is: Who owns copyright in the photo? Often it is the photographer, but it depends on the circumstances. One obvious exception (but not the only exception) is if the photographer has signed a contract assigning copyright to someone else (usually the person who commissioned the shoot).
The second question is: Is the photo reproducing copyright work (eg copyright in an artwork or copyright in an architectural design). If so, is that permitted without a licence/agreement or is a licence/agreement required? I'm not going to get into that here, except to say that in relation to the OP, if the college buildings are old, my guess is any copyright in the architecture has expired, in which case there is no issue about that in his case.

Regarding trade marks, that is also a potential issue whether trespassing or not. However, there is not necessarily a problem merely because a trade mark is visible in a photograph (contrary to what many trade marks owners seem to think!). Earlier in this thread I put a link to an older thread which has a post from me that talks a bit about that issue, so I won't type it all out again here. (There is also a potential issue of the tort of "passing off", which bears some similarity to trade mark infringement although it is a bit different, and does not depend on there being any registered trade mark.)

PS:
I should qualify this by saying I am not a US lawyer. However, I'm pretty confident the US law on these issues is close enough to what I am used to that what I have said above is correct.
There are other issues which could perhaps arise too, in particular situations, eg if a photograph showed confidential information.

Edited to emphasise the "and" in the part about trespass

 

[jd7]

I would echo the comments and advice of Private and others.

There seems to be a key statement that you are overlooking:

All vendors must have a license from our licensing agency in order to sell any image of the college. We ask that you remove the photos from your website until you have become a licensed vendor of the college.

In plain English, this means the college has signed a contract with a third party to review and approve anything connected with the college that might have a financial value: the college's name, logo, sports mascot, buildings, etc. etc. This licensing entity reviews any request to use any of these items and secure a percentage of the profits for the college. One aspect of this is that the agreement with the college probably requires the college to take necessary steps to protect the value of the college's image.

The college can have all the licensing arrangements, policies, terms and conditions, etc, it likes. However, just because they exist doesn't mean they are necessarily relevant here. If the OP did not know about them and was not directed to them, in advance, by the college, it's unlikely they have any relevance to the OP's position.

I don't understand why so many people are so quick to conclude the OP is in the wrong here. I have doubts the legal position is as clear as the college thinks and is making out. My experience is many people have a misunderstanding of the extent of their legal rights in these sort of situations, and some can be quite officious about it.

And while reasonable people can differ about the ethics of a situation like this, my view is it's unclear the OP has done anything he "shouldn't have". Sounds like he was genuinely trying to help out, a situation developed unexpectedly which has given him the opportunity to make a little bit of money after he donated his time, and to the extent there is any difficulty now it stems from a communication issue between him and the college. And while it may be understandable in the circumstances that a communication issue has arisen, the college bears responsibility for that too.

 

[jd7]

Btw, you have no proof that a security guard saw you unless you have a photo of him looking at you when you were taking the photo and can prove that you yourself at that same time were using photographic equipment. Finally, how would a security guard know if you were authorised or not? The college would say it is not his duty...

While a photograph of the security guard would be good evidence, it is not conclusive "proof", eg it could be photoshopped. The question is whether a court would conclude from the evidence that the security guard was there. And in that regard, the OP's evidence of what he saw is perfectly relevant. If the court accepts his word about it, that's fine.

As for the relevance of the security guard, perhaps there is an argument that the security guard seeing the OP and not stopping him amounts to consent by the college, perhaps not. To be honest I doubt it, but there are a number of issues which would need to be investigated. For example, should the security guard know what is and is not allowed to occur on the premises? What was the relationship between the security guard and the college (eg employee? contractor?)? Too much information we don't have to come to a firm conclusion.

 

[takesome1]

What I haven't found a whole lot of legal information on is trespassing and photography. I could widen my search to trespassing in general, and see what I can find. I was hoping people in this forum had specific knowledge on this and could provide more insight.

Trespassing does not apply, you said yourself; "I was invited to a private girl's college to photograph a play by the director."

You had permission to be there.
You had permission to take pictures.

The question is are you bound by the schools policies since you were unaware of them, and you were asked by a school representative to come and take pictures. I think the argument could be that the director waived school policy when he asked you to take photos.

 

[old-pr-pix]

All speculation and few facts... It's quite possible the school has very strict requirements regarding what they would consider professional photography on campus. Potentially the director actually violated their policy by inviting the OP - perhaps unknowingly, perhaps on purpose. It's possible the director should have been using someone who was already a registered vendor to the school and was, in fact, not authorized to invite the OP to photograph in the first place (goes to the issue of trespass). Perhaps the director had had a bad experience using a "licensed" photographer previously and simply decided to take the "seek forgiveness rather than ask permission" route. Or, maybe it was all very innocent and neither the director nor the OP had any idea there could be a problem. We don't know details. Courts are great places to sort out all the details... often at great expense. And, usually the only real winners are the attorneys.

 

[yorgasor]

Here is my 2 cents as I have done a lot of commercial architecture work... Any time your on public lands, you are safe to do as you see fit, BUT, increasingly professional photographers are being targeted by the police citing the need for city permits to take photos on public land... so, if you can get the shot done without drawing attention to yourself, all the better. Anytime your on private property, then you run the risk of trademark and licensing and other claims to your work. If you want to show off the buildings on your personal pages, websites, etc to show off your skills, you have a case saying you own copyright, and in those cases, it's almost easier to do it and apologize later... Getting permission before hand, especially to a new vendor, can almost be like pulling teeth. And maybe if you sweetly come back to them with your final work, showing the best of the best that you can do of their property, maybe offering them a few complimentary wall prints, you can sweet talk your way into getting a fast track pass into being a new vendor. But selling the prints and then asking for more may have rubbed a few feathers the wrong way if you know what i mean.

When on private property, trespass becomes an issue. And it comes down to whether you had permission (express or implied) to be there and take the photos you took. If you were trespassing, the photos were taken in breach of the law and, generally speaking, you aren't entitled to keep or use the photos. Note that it doesn't matter whether you are using them for private or for commercial purposes - you aren't titled to keep them. (In a practical sense, if you only use them privately then much chance the property owner finds out, or would be motivated enough to do anything about it.)

I haven't found anything that implies photos take while trespassing are not yours to keep. I still haven't found a good source of information for this particular situation, but this has some good general information:

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-photographers

"When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply)."

This meshes with my understanding such that to be charged with trespassing, you need to either be somewhere you should clearly not be, or in a more public area and refusing to leave when instructed. For example, private areas would be:
* a fenced in yard
* inside a residence or non-public access part of a building (such as "employees only" in a store)
* property clearly marked with "no trespassing"
The wording I've read a couple places is something like "being somewhere you know you shouldn't be."

So, if you're in an area where you've either been invited or the public is generally allowed to be, you can assume your first amendment rights to take photographs, unless there are signs posted signifying "no photography" or they have otherwise let you know photography is not allowed. If the owner sees you taking photos, he could either tell you to stop taking photos and allow you to remain, or he could tell you to leave. If you leave, you are not trespassing.

I have yet to find any information suggesting the idea that photos obtained this way are still not 100% yours to do with as you see fit. Even if you refuse to leave and the cops arrest you, you still have full rights to your photos. The owner of the property cannot confiscate or inspect your camera or memory card, and according to the ACLU link posted above, neither can the police:

* Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant.
* Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.

If you can find a source indicating that your rights with the photos are somehow lessened when photographing while trespassing, I'd be interested in seeing it. The link I posted in the original post talked about a photographer who crossed fences clearly marked "no trespassing" to get his photo. The school tried charging him with conversion, such that he used images of their property to make money. The judge ruled that since he did not take a physical item from the property, only an image of it, that this claim was invalid. The only claim that could proceed was that of trespassing. With that being the remaining claim, the parties agreed to a settlement (which was confidential), and his photo is still available for sale.

 

[yorgasor]

All speculation and few facts... It's quite possible the school has very strict requirements regarding what they would consider professional photography on campus. Potentially the director actually violated their policy by inviting the OP - perhaps unknowingly, perhaps on purpose. It's possible the director should have been using someone who was already a registered vendor to the school and was, in fact, not authorized to invite the OP to photograph in the first place (goes to the issue of trespass). Perhaps the director had had a bad experience using a "licensed" photographer previously and simply decided to take the "seek forgiveness rather than ask permission" route. Or, maybe it was all very innocent and neither the director nor the OP had any idea there could be a problem. We don't know details. Courts are great places to sort out all the details... often at great expense. And, usually the only real winners are the attorneys.

I suspect those ideas are mostly irrelevant. The school specifically says on their website that visitors are welcome. It's an open campus where people are free to come and go. There is a guard at the main entrance but he allows people in as long as it's not after hours. Specifically, the student handbook says:

"Males are not allowed on campus after closing hours (1:00 a.m. Sunday – Thursday; 2:00
a.m. Friday and Saturday) "

If visitors are welcome, potentially anyone could stop by and visit the grounds without trespassing, much like a grocery store. People can't be trespassing if they're there during open hours unless they're asked to leave and refuse to do so. In my particular case, I have now been told I cannot take pictures of the campus buildings or fountains, so if I were to return and take more of these photos, I would then be trespassing.

I have yet to receive specific details from the college on what these rules are, because they are not posted anywhere or listed on their website. I suspect many people go there and take pictures, the students who go to school there take pictures. It might turn out to be fine for personal use, and only frowned on when selling prints.

 

[unfocused]

Clearly you disagree with the opinion of most of the people responding to your thread. It appears we aren't going to persuade you and you clearly aren't going to persuade us.

I'm not looking for opinions on whether I was right or wrong.

So, I guess I'm wondering what your point is.

What I have done was researched the laws and court cases on copyright, trademark, and trespassing and applied it to this specific situation. I'm pretty sure about my interpretation of copyright and trademark laws, and so far no one has pointed to other court cases, laws, or legal articles that discredit my interpretation of them. If you find something, I would love to review it and see how it applies to this situation.

If you are looking for legal advice, the Internet is not the place to get it.

I'm more interested in situations where a person is walking around taking pictures, whether he could get in trouble for it, or when his rights to use those pictures are reduced...I'd love to hear some of the community's position on those, and either reasoning or citations supporting those positions.

I think you've already gotten a consensus opinion from the community, but if that's what you really want, I'm happy to be more specific.

The college is inviting the public on to their grounds. As you were there during the hours that the grounds are open to the public, I doubt that trespass comes into play.

It doesn't sound like they raised the issue of trespass.

Even if they invite the public to the grounds, they still have the right to regulate the behavior of those on their property. They have set a rule of no commercial photography of iconic structures on their property. You took a picture of one of their iconic structures and tried to profit from it. They told you not to do that.

If you wish to challenge their right to prohibit you from profiting from the pictures, you need to see a lawyer and take them to court. A court will then determine all of the facts in the case and rule either for or against you. There is no other way to get a definitive answer. However, if you consult an attorney, they will be happy to research case law and will probably give you a pretty good idea of where you might stand.

 

[jd7]

When on private property, trespass becomes an issue. And it comes down to whether you had permission (express or implied) to be there and take the photos you took. If you were trespassing, the photos were taken in breach of the law and, generally speaking, you aren't entitled to keep or use the photos. Note that it doesn't matter whether you are using them for private or for commercial purposes - you aren't titled to keep them. (In a practical sense, if you only use them privately then much chance the property owner finds out, or would be motivated enough to do anything about it.)

I haven't found anything that implies photos take while trespassing are not yours to keep.

Firstly, to ensure there is no confusion, the "and" in the statement "whether you had permission (express or implied) to be there and take the photos you took" is very important. In legal terms, if someone gives you a licence to come onto private property, the next question is what is the scope of the licence.

As for rights to photographs taken while trespassing, I'm not a US lawyer so I'm afraid I can't give you a confident answer off-hand about the US position. The following case is Australian, but you find it interesting if you can spare the time to read it:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html

 

[yorgasor]

As for rights to photographs taken while trespassing, I'm not a US lawyer so I'm afraid I can't give you a confident answer off-hand about the US position. The following case is Australian, but you find it interesting if you can spare the time to read it:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html

This case looks interesting. I haven't read all of it, but it looks like the injunction on broadcast rights relied heavily on the right to privacy, rather than whether or not the video was taken while trespassing. The reputation of the meat processing plant would be greatly damaged if the video was broadcast. One aspect they needed to prove was whether or not corporations had the right to privacy.

In the case of the photographer who jumped the fence to photograph the trees, the school also tried to claim the right to privacy. The defense said that most jurisdictions have faced such claims and have ruled that corporations are not living beings and have no right to privacy. In this case, the judge sidestepped the issue, because in South Carolina law, there are 4 requirements necessary:

(1) publicizing,
(2) absent any waiver or privilege,
(3) private matters in which the public has no legitimate concern,
(4) so as to bring shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

The judge ruled that they failed to prove item #4:

'The court can see no way in which the publication of a photo capturing a beautiful image like “Plantation Road” in any way “bring shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.”'

 

[jd7]

As for rights to photographs taken while trespassing, I'm not a US lawyer so I'm afraid I can't give you a confident answer off-hand about the US position. The following case is Australian, but you find it interesting if you can spare the time to read it:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html

This case looks interesting. I haven't read all of it, but it looks like the injunction on broadcast rights relied heavily on the right to privacy, rather than whether or not the video was taken while trespassing. The reputation of the meat processing plant would be greatly damaged if the video was broadcast. One aspect they needed to prove was whether or not corporations had the right to privacy.

The case has some complications. The application was against the broadcaster but the broadcaster didn't actually shoot the footage, so the applicant didn't have a straightforward trespass claim against the broadcaster so the applicant had to make a more complicated argument. Australian law does not recognise a general right to privacy (a slightly contentious statement), and the Applicant in the case was a corporation which made a privacy argument even harder. (There are other potential arguments though, eg related to confidential information, defamation and injurious falsehood.) However, you will have seen there is some discussion about trespass and the consequences for footage shot while trespassing.