Photos and Videos Banned at Gun Club

I'm not a copyright expert, but taking a photograph that shows the club's facilities doesn't give them any copyrights or claim over your photo. As long as you are there legally and not trespassing, they have nothing legally on you. Just an empty threat meant to terrorize people.
 
Terrorize people?
Really?
Let me soften this up just a bit, I'm not sure I would use the word terrorize in this context.
 
Last edited:
Terrorize people?
Really?
Let me soften this up just a bit, I'm not sure I would use the word terrorize in this context.
Click to expand...

No need to "soften" anything, I'm sure people can survive the immense pain your brilliant posts supposedly inflict.

In order for your words to have any validity, you need to show me the approved list of descriptions of someone trying to scare people by threatening fictitious legal repercussions, with a footnote stating that "terrorizing" is inappropriate. Until you do that, your words mean as much as anything anyone who owns a keyboard can say these days, and therefore I wouldn't really bother :rolleyes:

Cheers.
 
I am by trade a professional photographer.
What I can tell you that I know for sure, if you take a photograph you own the copyright.
If that photo contains the likeness of a celebrity or a trademark you cannot use it for commercial purposes without written consent.
However if it is for commentary or any non commercial usage such as social media or a blog they have not legal recourse.
Now if they have banned photography all together that would be more of a club issue, not a legal one.
 
Around here gunshows prohibit photos, videos, etc because sometimes they are manipulated to show the venue in the worst possible light on the tv news or in the newspapers. I suspect the club has a similar concern but you should ask.
 
As I study the proposed rules closer -
It's ok to take pictures or videos on site for your own personal use.
Posting them on ANY news or social media site where non members can view them would be punishable. Facebook, Twitter, anything a non member could view them on.
 
Well let's get the information straight since it seems to be morphing with subsequent posts...

PROPOSED CLUB POLICY

Re: Media coverage at Gateway Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc (GRPC)

1. The purpose of this policy is to protect the image of Gateway Rifle & Pistol Club by having control of photography and video coverage taken on our premises that is intended for dissemination to the general public (non-members of GRPC) through the internet (including Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or others), television, newspapers, magazines and books defined as media. For example, the intentional media coverage of safety issues, illegal actions or other activities that could be of embarrassment or legal concern to GRPC is not allowed nor permitted.

2. It is the policy of GRPC that any and all media coverage for dissemination to the general public taken on our premises must be approved in advance by GRPC management. This does not preclude the use of cameras or video tapes by Club members for their personal use.

3. Present policy is that members of the press, news media or other organizations that have access to the public in general be escorted by a member of Club management consisting of GRPC Officers, BOD Members or Club Managers. This policy puts in writing the need for control of photographic and video coverage defined as media coverage taken on our premises during such escorted visits. Present administrative procedures also require that a member of GRPC chain of command be immediately notified of any official visit by any government agency, local, state or federal including police and fire. Such a visitor must be accompanied by a person in the chain of command or a designated Club member or employee.

4. Violation of this policy on media coverage will result in punitive measures by the Board of Directors of GRPC with both legal and/or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Taken from the public page of FB and does not appear to be copyrighted material https://www.facebook.com/GatewayRiflePistolClub

I like the blatant coverup statement (in bold face).
 
I understand their concerns. I would never post anything unsafe, scary or stupid putting the club members or the club in a bad light.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand their concerns. I understand their concerns and I think the proposed policy is an excellent one. You may not be a dumbass, but I can assure you that someone in your club is or will be a dumbass and post something that does not make the club look good. Do you really expect volunteers at a gun club to go around chasing dumbasses who post stupid things on social media? No, it's much easier to make a policy prohibiting posting shooting pictures on websites and kick out anyone who violates the policy. It also gives them some ability to get the website to remove the picture if they have an agreement in place that prohibits posting of pictures of their facility or activities.

It's high time that people stop thinking they have some kind of God given right to carry a camera or video camera everywhere they go, even in private places, record video of whatever they want to record and then publish it for the entire world to see.

I look forward to the day that anyone can buy a $50 video/camera jamming device on Ebay that renders all cameras/video cameras useless within a 50' radius. IMHO, the worst invasion of privacy comes from the cell-phone camera. Why can people have cameras hidden in their cell phones, but I can't have a firearm hidden in my cell phone without some kind of special tax stamp?
 
Last edited:
---------------------------------------
No, you don't understand their concerns. I understand their concerns
---------------------------------------

Lol did you read my comments? I was fairly neutral.

Where is your anger coming from?
 
No anger. Just expressing my opinion on this.

You said you understood the club's concern. But, you indicate that you are not happy with their decision to ban the publication of shooting pictures involving the club, even though you would never publish anything to put the club in a bad light. That's kind of like saying "I never do anything stupid, just other people, so they shouldn't stop me from doing it..."

So, yes, I questioned whether you really did understand the club's concerns. Some group of people, who probably get paid nothing, have to deal with a few yahoos posting stupid stuff all over the web with club information on it. All it takes is one dedicated anti, or one hard-nosed reporter to make a bunch of paid-nothing volunteers and a shooting club look like a terrorist training camp. The bottom line is that the club is a shooting range, not a photographer's studio and not a movie studio.

FYI, I am seeing signs that prohibit cellphones and cameras inside of bathrooms where kids/families camp out. I hope that's not crimping anyone's ability to freely express themselves.

Cameras are totally out of control. It's time to rein them in a little. I applaud the club's decision.
 
Last edited:
This to me looks like the club is trying to cover their butts for someone seeing something stupid that went on at the club.

I have news for you unless the event took place inside a covered building there already is video or at least still shots of it happening. Homeland Security has the satelites sending all the images that they can looking for suspicious behavior.

I have seen the sat images of my cabin and you just can not read my lisence plate because of the angle.
 
Jim567 said:
There was also a rule already in place that news media and official police, political visits ect must be approved and accompanied by authorized club officers.
Click to expand...
Politicians have no right of entry anywhere without some sort of permission from whoever controls the property. Same applies to police when off-duty. A rule that "official" police visits (i.e. in the course of carrying out their duties) must be approved and escorted? Good luck with that. Ask the Branch Davidians how that worked out for them.

Oh ... wait.

Rules said:
1. The purpose of this policy is to protect the image of Gateway Rifle & Pistol Club by having control of photography and video coverage taken on our premises that is intended for dissemination to the general public (non-members of GRPC) through the internet (including Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or others), television, newspapers, magazines and books defined as media. For example, the intentional media coverage of safety issues, illegal actions or other activities that could be of embarrassment or legal concern to GRPC is not allowed nor permitted.

2. It is the policy of GRPC that any and all media coverage for dissemination to the general public taken on our premises must be approved in advance by GRPC management. This does not preclude the use of cameras or video tapes by Club members for their personal use.
Click to expand...
It would never stand up in court. Facebook is not "media." It is questionable whether or not Twitter is "media." Then there's the question of what constitutes "general public." If my brother is not a member of the club and I send him some photos of me at the range, I can't imagine that any court anywhere in the U.S. would agree that I have disseminated the photos to the "general public."

Even items posted to the "public" side of Facebook could be argued not to have been disseminated to the "general public." Facebook is a membership site. Without a membership, you can't see anything. I don't belong to Facebook, and I find it annoying when people post links to Facebook pages (or whatever they are) and I can't view them.

I'm in agreement with those who suggest finding another range. It's a stupid rule, made stupider by the way it's written.
 
Last edited:
2. It is the policy of GRPC that any and all media coverage for dissemination to the general public taken on our premises must be approved in advance by GRPC management. This does not preclude the use of cameras or video tapes by Club members for their personal use.
Click to expand...

pre·clude
prəˈklo͞od/
verb
verb: preclude; 3rd person present: precludes; past tense: precluded; past participle: precluded; gerund or present participle: precluding

prevent from happening; make impossible.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like they don't have a problem with you taking pictures as long as they are for personal use. I assume that would include posting them on FaceBook.
 
Here is where I ponder this proposed rule the most.
As a member I would never post something that is inapropriate to the club or it's members.

Under this rule I would be subject to what ever punishment the club deems prudent if I did.

I don't have a problem with that.

I do enjoy posting pictures of my son,daughter and friends,with their permission,shooting there.

It is not my intent or business to take pictures of anyone else.

Under the proposed rules I could be punished for posting those appropriate pictures of family and friends to face book if I did not seek prior approval from the board.
I am uncomfortable with that.

Now, the club allows non member day shooters.
On any given day they can equal the number of members.

While the clubs rules may cause some members to "toe the line",
non members have no such worry they could just go to another range and not lose membership dues, shooting buddies, ect.

Also ask yourself, who is most likely to do or post sometime dangerous or detrimental to the club? It's the day shooters.
My apologies to the fine and good folks I have met who day shoot there.

An outright ban on smart phones would be the only solution.

Try inforcing that.It would be unpleasant and impossible.
 
Last edited:
I could see where some members might object to photos or videos being publicly posted which show them with firearms. They may have legitimate concerns about thieves. Just think of those members here who do not like disclosing how many firearms they own or posting photos of firearms without obscuring the serial numbers. Some employers or co-workers might also be hostile to a gun owner.
Click to expand...

My GF's job is a perfect example of this. I am good friends with her boss who HATES guns and is very anti-gun. We are both friends with him on facebook and anytime a picture is taken of me hunting or with my guns I ask that my face or my GF face is blurred out and its not tagged on my FB. I don't want him to become hostile to her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top