If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...y-rights_x.htm
The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions: * Certain military installations or operations. * People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers
Sure, but if you:
A- sell a shot of someone without a Model Release, that person who you photographed can sue you and the publication for using there image without consent. Probably they can then retire and buy an Island in the Caribbean. B- Also, if you photograph someone without permission they can bust your head open for invading there privacy either with a bat or take you to court for privacy violation. Unless of course they pay you to shoot a "Wedding" and then all guests are covered. If you do shoot someone dont get caught. Not4wood "RichA" wrote in message ... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...y-rights_x.htm The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions: * Certain military installations or operations. * People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other littleHitlers
On Dec 10, 9:15 pm, "Not4wood" wrote:
Sure, but if you: A- sell a shot of someone without a Model Release, that person who you photographed can sue you and the publication for using there image without consent. Probably they can then retire and buy an Island in the Caribbean. B- Also, if you photograph someone without permission they can bust your head open for invading there privacy either with a bat or take you to court for privacy violation. Unless of course they pay you to shoot a "Wedding" and then all guests are covered. They have no expectation of privacy unless they are in a private premise or some area where they should be able to expect privacy. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers
On 2007-12-10 18:15:28 -0800, "Not4wood" said:
Sure, but if you: A- sell a shot of someone without a Model Release, that person who you photographed can sue you and the publication for using there image without consent. Probably they can then retire and buy an Island in the Caribbean. Not if the photo is for editorial use. Only commercial usage needs a model release. B- Also, if you photograph someone without permission they can bust your head open for invading there privacy either with a bat or take you to court for privacy violation. Unless of course they pay you to shoot a "Wedding" and then all guests are covered. In the US, you can take pictures of anyone in a public place or if they can be seen from a public place. If they hit you with a bat you can sue them for assault. No one has a right to privacy in a public area. If you are on a cruise ship or with a tour group, for example, people cannot stop you from taking their picture. Neither can they stop you from taking their picture when they are standing in a window. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, for someone who is visible from the street eating spaghetti in a restaurant, or even if they are standing nude in their bedroom window which faces the street. In general, if you can see people from a public place, they cannot object to being photographed. There are some public areas where people have a right to privacy, such as public restrooms. States differ in their laws on photography in restrooms. Also, states differ in their laws concerning such invasions of privacy as using secret cameras to photograph up dresses or things like that. But in general, if a couple is sitting on a park bench you can take their photo and they can't do a thing about it, whether they want you to take their photo or not. Courts are very protective of freedom of expression and will limit it only when absolutely necessary to preserve public order. You may not take a photo which is defamatory, for instance. An example of this was a case where a woman was being harassed by photographers who posted her picture in public places and replaced her head with that of a gorilla. I strongly recommend "Legal Handbook for Photographers" by Bert Krages, Esq. It has been updated to include current security rules in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and includes considerable useful information on copyright and protecting your intellectual property. If you do shoot someone dont get caught. Depends on what you shoot them with. Not4wood "RichA" wrote in message ... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...y-rights_x.htm The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions: * Certain military installations or operations. * People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers
IANAL, but neither is the author of the of article cited in the
original post, so... C J Campbell wrote: Not4wood said: Sure, but if you: A- sell a shot of someone without a Model Release, that person who you photographed can sue you and the publication for using there image without consent. Probably they can then retire and buy an Island in the Caribbean. Not if the photo is for editorial use. Only commercial usage needs a model release. The major distinction there is editorial versus advertising context. People publish and sell photos of celebrities without their permission all the time. Using a person's image in an advertisement generally requires their permission. In the US, you can take pictures of anyone in a public place or if they can be seen from a public place. If they hit you with a bat you can sue them for assault. No one has a right to privacy in a public area. If you are on a cruise ship or with a tour group, for example, people cannot stop you from taking their picture. A cruise ship? Those are invariably private property. Worse, you'd have to know what law applies given where it is and what flag it flies. Neither can they stop you from taking their picture when they are standing in a window. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, for someone who is visible from the street eating spaghetti in a restaurant, Maliciously holding people who are not "public figures" up to public scorn or ridicule can be actionable, even if all editorial content is true and all images unaltered. The bar for plaintiffs in such cases is high, but if when you aim your camera into the restaurant, you happen to catch an ordinary pasta-lover in an embarrassing but not uncommon noodle-drool, don't publicize the image as "duface of the year". [...] Courts are very protective of freedom of expression and will limit it only when absolutely necessary to preserve public order. Right. When the expression is important to you, refraining for fear of legal consequences is unwarranted, and, worse, cowardly. If you want to stand up for the right for the sake of the right, without a plausible argument for the importance of the particular expression at issue, that's good too. Just do it for someone else's case, not your own. Robert Zicari and Paul F. Little are not First Amendment champions; they are scum. Their cases won us a little bit of freedom because better people stood up. -- --Bryan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers
On 2007-12-11 01:59:53 -0800, Bryan Olson said:
IANAL, but neither is the author of the of article cited in the original post, so... C J Campbell wrote: Not4wood said: Sure, but if you: A- sell a shot of someone without a Model Release, that person who you photographed can sue you and the publication for using there image without consent. Probably they can then retire and buy an Island in the Caribbean. Not if the photo is for editorial use. Only commercial usage needs a model release. The major distinction there is editorial versus advertising context. People publish and sell photos of celebrities without their permission all the time. Using a person's image in an advertisement generally requires their permission. In the US, you can take pictures of anyone in a public place or if they can be seen from a public place. If they hit you with a bat you can sue them for assault. No one has a right to privacy in a public area. If you are on a cruise ship or with a tour group, for example, people cannot stop you from taking their picture. A cruise ship? Those are invariably private property. Worse, you'd have to know what law applies given where it is and what flag it flies. A public place does not mean public property. Public places include cruise ships, restaurants, bookies, or any other place that is open to the public, whether it is privately owned or not. In point of fact, travel magazines do take editorial photographs of people on cruise ships all the time. They do not get model releases from everyone who appears in their pictures. However, such model releases are wise if you think you might want to use the photo for advertising purposes later. Neither can they stop you from taking their picture when they are standing in a window. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, for someone who is visible from the street eating spaghetti in a restaurant, Maliciously holding people who are not "public figures" up to public scorn or ridicule can be actionable, even if all editorial content is true and all images unaltered. The bar for plaintiffs in such cases is high, but if when you aim your camera into the restaurant, you happen to catch an ordinary pasta-lover in an embarrassing but not uncommon noodle-drool, don't publicize the image as "duface of the year". In a case where a fan stood up during a ball game and was photographed with his fly open, the fan sued the newspaper where his photo appeared. The court ruled that the newspaper had a right to run the picture and threw the case out. The fan had no right to an expectation of privacy even if the picture subjected him to public scorn and ridicule. In fact, it is very difficult in the US to sue for public scorn and ridicule. If you do stupid or embarrassing things in public you cannot sue people for taking your picture. Certainly, noodle-drool would not be enough to be considered malicious scorn or ridicule. The only cases where malicious scorn and ridicule have been used successfully to sue photographers were cases where people were photographed by upskirting knotheads and the like. The test is not 'malicious scorn or ridicule,' as you say, but intentional infliction of emotional distress, which must be so severe that an ordinary person cannot be expected to endure it. That is far beyond ordinary public embarrassment such as noodle drool. Noodle drool is not malicious scorn and ridicule. Printing a caption that says "Dufus of the year" is not malicious scorn and ridicule. Giving him the head of a gorilla is malicious scorn and ridicule. Turning him green is malicious scorn and ridicule. Making the spaghetti look like worms is malicious scorn and ridicule. But I defy you to cite one case where someone won on the basis of malicious scorn and ridicule for something like noodle drool. Stalking people or following them around snapping their picture in order to harass them is not only likely to get you sued, it could land you in jail. Many states have anti-stalking and anti-harassment laws. Texas has a law that prohibits you taking a photo of someone if the intent is to arouse somebody sexually. Such a law is probably unenforceable because it is so vague and it requires that someone make a determination of what the intent of the photographer was. California has a law that says that you may not illegally trespass on private property or assault someone in order to invade others' privacy. Such a law clearly spells out what the illegal activity is and it would be very difficult for a photographer to explain why he assaulted a guard and snuck into a mansion in order to photograph Nicole Kidman in bed. But a pilot who photographs Barbara Streisand's house from the air has a right to do so. Barbara Streisand does not own the air space above her home and the pilot was not using the photo for any commercial purpose. His interest was in studying the shoreline along Malibu. Barbara cannot sue Google Earth, either, for the same reason. People conducting illegal activities or who are betting at a local bookie can be photographed and have no right to sue as a consequence. If you want to photograph the local drug dealer conducting business that is your right (but you probably will need a bodyguard) no matter how much scorn or ridicule is heaped upon him as a result. Photographs of people caught in moments of extreme tragedy or embarrassment sometimes win Pulitzer prizes. Couples caressing in public markets, photographs of women wrapped only in a towel fleeing an apartment fire, and the burned corpses of teenagers killed in auto accidents all can cause severe distress, be embarrassing, or even break up a marriage, but the people who sued the photographers or publishers in these cases all lost. Security cameras regularly record the activities of people in their private workplaces, living quarters, as they drive, where they shop, and practically everywhere else they go. It does not matter if you are with your mistress when you pick up your hotel room key and you would rather not have your wife find out about it. The security camera behind the desk is going to photograph you anyway. And if some newsworthy event happens, such as a robbery at the next counter, that security camera's photos might well appear in the paper the next day. That said, a hotel that regularly photographs its patrons entering the lobby in the company of prostitutes and sends the pictures to the paper is probably going to lose a considerable amount of business. But unless the hotel wrongly implies that the individuals in the picture are soliciting prostitutes, then it cannot be sued for malicious scorn and mischief. An example of this was a man who was photographed picking up his teenage granddaughter in a car. The photograph appeared in an article on teenage prostitution. The man and his granddaughter sued for invasion of privacy, emotional stress, and being held up for scorn and ridicule. They lost. The court held that the area was known for teenage prostitution and that given the location, the time of night, and the way the granddaughter was dressed it was reasonable for the photographer to assume that this was an instance of a man picking up a teenager for the purpose of prostitution. After all, a photographer cannot be expected to walk up in such a situation and ask if the people involved are doing something other than what they appear to be doing. If it had been the middle of the day at a prep school and the girl had been wearing a school uniform, they might have had a case. [...] Courts are very protective of freedom of expression and will limit it only when absolutely necessary to preserve public order. Right. When the expression is important to you, refraining for fear of legal consequences is unwarranted, and, worse, cowardly. If you want to stand up for the right for the sake of the right, without a plausible argument for the importance of the particular expression at issue, that's good too. Just do it for someone else's case, not your own. Robert Zicari and Paul F. Little are not First Amendment champions; they are scum. Their cases won us a little bit of freedom because better people stood up. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other littleHitlers
On Dec 7, 6:53 pm, RichA wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...6-08-11-photog... The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions: * Certain military installations or operations. * People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens. Oops! http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87918091/original |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other littleHitlers
On Dec 11, 4:48 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 7, 6:53 pm, RichA wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...6-08-11-photog... The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions: * Certain military installations or operations. * People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens. Oops!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87918091/original Unless you were in a tree, it looks like it was visible from the street. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers
RichA wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:48 pm, Annika1980 wrote: On Dec 7, 6:53 pm, RichA wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...6-08-11-photog... The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions: * Certain military installations or operations. * People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens. Oops!http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87918091/original Unless you were in a tree, it looks like it was visible from the street. Hint: Some trees are on public property, and some of the ones that aren't can be rented like a motel. -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers
C J Campbell wrote:
Bryan Olson said: IANAL, but neither is the author of the of article cited in the original post, so... C J Campbell wrote: Not4wood said: Sure, but if you: A- sell a shot of someone without a Model Release, that person who you photographed can sue you and the publication for using there image without consent. Probably they can then retire and buy an Island in the Caribbean. Not if the photo is for editorial use. Only commercial usage needs a model release. The major distinction there is editorial versus advertising context. People publish and sell photos of celebrities without their permission all the time. Using a person's image in an advertisement generally requires their permission. In the US, you can take pictures of anyone in a public place or if they can be seen from a public place. If they hit you with a bat you can sue them for assault. No one has a right to privacy in a public area. If you are on a cruise ship or with a tour group, for example, people cannot stop you from taking their picture. A cruise ship? Those are invariably private property. Worse, you'd have to know what law applies given where it is and what flag it flies. A public place does not mean public property. Public places include cruise ships, restaurants, bookies, or any other place that is open to the public, whether it is privately owned or not. Burt Krages, the very author you just recommended, states: Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf In point of fact, travel magazines do take editorial photographs of people on cruise ships all the time. Because the owners allow them to, not because they have the right. Though again, cruise ships are a particularly difficult situation because of jurisdiction issues. Do not try to take a picture in a casino. Neither can they stop you from taking their picture when they are standing in a window. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, for someone who is visible from the street eating spaghetti in a restaurant, Maliciously holding people who are not "public figures" up to public scorn or ridicule can be actionable, even if all editorial content is true and all images unaltered. The bar for plaintiffs in such cases is high, but if when you aim your camera into the restaurant, you happen to catch an ordinary pasta-lover in an embarrassing but not uncommon noodle-drool, don't publicize the image as "duface of the year". In a case where a fan stood up during a ball game and was photographed with his fly open, the fan sued the newspaper where his photo appeared. The court ruled that the newspaper had a right to run the picture and threw the case out. The fan had no right to an expectation of privacy even if the picture subjected him to public scorn and ridicule. You mean Neff v Time Inc? The photographer told the group of fans that he worked for Sports Illustrated, and they deliberately performed for the camera. Neff wasn't identified by name in the story, which was about the zeal of Steeler fans. In fact, it is very difficult in the US to sue for public scorn and ridicule. Yes, just as I wrote. If you do stupid or embarrassing things in public you cannot sue people for taking your picture. Certainly, noodle-drool would not be enough to be considered malicious scorn or ridicule. The only cases where malicious scorn and ridicule have been used successfully to sue photographers were cases where people were photographed by upskirting knotheads and the like. The test is not 'malicious scorn or ridicule,' as you say, but intentional infliction of emotional distress, which must be so severe that an ordinary person cannot be expected to endure it. That is far beyond ordinary public embarrassment such as noodle drool. Noodle drool is not malicious scorn and ridicule. Printing a caption that says "Dufus of the year" is not malicious scorn and ridicule. Giving him the head of a gorilla is malicious scorn and ridicule. Turning him green is malicious scorn and ridicule. Making the spaghetti look like worms is malicious scorn and ridicule. But I defy you to cite one case where someone won on the basis of malicious scorn and ridicule for something like noodle drool. Daily Times Democrat v. Graham, 162 So.2d 474 (Ala. 1964). /The Writer's Legal Companion/ explains that in Daily Times Democrat v. Graham, "the Alabama woman won because the court found the newspaper had selected a particularly embarrassing photograph because it was embarrassing." It was malicious. If you check, you will find that courts recognize "malicious" and also "public scorn or ridicule". Photographs of people caught in moments of extreme tragedy or embarrassment sometimes win Pulitzer prizes. Couples caressing in public markets, photographs of women wrapped only in a towel fleeing an apartment fire, and the burned corpses of teenagers killed in auto accidents all can cause severe distress, be embarrassing, or even break up a marriage, but the people who sued the photographers or publishers in these cases all lost. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Do not use the photograph of a person that is not a public figure "maliciously" against them. -- --Bryan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cops: Before being murdered 74-year-old U.S. woman put up 'one hell of a fight'vs illegal alien | Bill K | Digital Photography | 4 | August 25th 06 07:08 PM |
A Passing Of Note | Jay Beckman | Digital SLR Cameras | 21 | August 24th 06 08:35 PM |
TV News cameraman attacked by mall security guards at Valley Plaza in Bakersfield,CA | JohnCM | Digital Photography | 59 | November 6th 04 05:49 AM |
TV News cameraman attacked by mall security guards at Valley Plaza in Bakersfield,CA | Michael A. Covington | Digital Photography | 18 | November 2nd 04 03:04 AM |
TV News cameraman attacked by mall security guards at ValleyPlaza in Bakersfield,CA | Jer | Digital Photography | 12 | November 1st 04 09:14 AM |