A Bay Area photographer is facing legal trouble for posting a composited picture of the Golden Gate Bridge with the blood moon, which was taken from an “illegal angle.” The Bridge District claims the angle shows that the photographer must have trespassed into a restricted area in order to get the shot and wants the photo removed from his website — something he refuses to do.
Bruce Getty says he is “just a guy who likes to go on the rocks and get a unique angle of the bridge.” After snapping his photo of the bridge, he later Photoshopped another of his images into it: that of the blood moon from 2014. He then uploaded the composited image onto his website, where it eventually caught the attention of the Bridge District, who issued a cease and desist letter. The District is seeking any profits Getty has made from the image, although Getty claims he hasn’t sold any copies of the image and simply wants it for his own portfolio. "I'm just a nobody taking pictures; I like to have fun," he said.
The shot in question.
Speaking to Fstoppers, Getty says photography helped him turn his life around after getting sober in 2008 and that he has not currently responded to the District’s letter, as he can’t afford an attorney: “It’s not like I have some thriving business. I’m an artist, and I live check to check.”
By his own admission, Getty has been cited for trespassing back in 2014, as well as stopped last December by a police officer who insisted he delete the images, which he declined. The District has threatened prosecution should Getty be found in the same area again.
More of Getty's Golden Gate Bridge work.
See more of Bruce Getty's work at his website and Instagram.
Images courtesy and with permission of Bruce Getty.
This is a tough conversation, how far is a photographer allowed to go. If I had a rare rose farm on posted no trespass property and a photographer snuck on and took a picture what are my rights to the photo?
Look everybody this is about trespassing NOT about taking photos.
So unless there is also a sign standing there stating No Photos (based on a civil law) he's good.
Leave him alone. In fact, catch him next time and give him due process...
article from different source. https://abc7news.com/5932662/ He was cited for trespassing when he took the photo. The assets/product of a crime, in this case the crime is trespassing and the product is the photograph, are illegal. The government can seize the product any items used to produce the product and any profits from the product. He would be wise to just back down, remove the photo from the website and not sell it.
The government can't let this go, because once they allow it once then the price of breaking the law and trespassing to get a good photo is the cost of the ticket. I bet if he had put in a request and some work he could have gotten access to the site and gotten the same photo. This does not help photographers as a whole.
100% agree that whoever took this is a lazy sack of crap, and could've received access with not much effort. I also agree that he shouldn't be allowed to make money off the photo, based on the fact that he committed a crime to take it. I question whether or not there is grounds for seizure here. He didn't steal anything, and the product of trespassing is access to restricted areas. I mean one could argue memories are a product of trespassing in this case, so we better lobotomize him? We can't draw lines with law specifically to the product of being a photographer. Again, this entire thing is a wild tangled mess of doing what's right, punishment equal to the crime, abuse of power, and future precedent.
I agree, the end results will be determined by who has the best lawyers and the strongest will to win.
"The government can seize the product any items used to produce the product and any profits from the product." Seem like that would be easy if he was mining or growing flowers on the trespassed property but he was creating intellectual property, do if he wrote a song about the Big Moon Over the GG while trespassing would the gov have rights to that too?
Does that include copyright transfer of the photo, which is a Federal jurisdiction? I don't know if the GG Bridge District is a Federal or State or Interstate or Local entity. either way he's pretty much out of luck.
yes they have they can seize the copyright and the profits of any sales of the photo (which they have already requested.) They could also seize his camera gear used to take the photo and if he drove there his car as well. All depends on how aggressive the prosecutor wants to be.
Wow. Do you have any examples or cases of a govt entity exploiting the copyright for profit with trespassing photographers? Since copyright is a federal issue wouldn't this need to be decided in federal court?
"The assets/product of a crime, in this case the crime is trespassing and the product is the photograph, are illegal."
Sorry but this is simply not correct. While they may be able to seize any profits they can not seize (or order to be destroyed) the photographs. They court that would handle the trespass case simply does not have any jurisdiction over copyright.
The shot should not be deleted, but the city can fine him. A camera is not permission to break the law. I see it all the time, photographers trespassing because they think that having a camera gives them some kind of an immunity against having to follow rules.
You can get a similar perspective from a boat going underneath the bridge. I've been on a boat and taken many photos. The Golden Gate Bridge is one of the 7 wonders of the world and for SF to trademark it is unconscionable IMHO. Isn't it enough that I have to pay to go across this bridge every time. The greed people have is ridiculous. San Francisco should be honored to have people take photos... share them... sell them... whatever. It is better marketing than getting such negative coverage. I left San Francisco years ago and I hate what it has become. Where is the proof that someone trespassed? Maybe it was done with mirrors LOL. It could be photoshopped like the moon is as far as they know. San Francisco should worry more about real crime and getting poor people off the streets.