A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Note to all ass---- cops, security guards and other little Hitlers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 8th 07, 12:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
RichA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,544
Default 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  
Old December 11th 07, 03:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Not4wood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default 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  
Old December 11th 07, 05:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
RichA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,544
Default 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  
Old December 11th 07, 07:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default 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  
Old December 11th 07, 10:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bryan Olson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default 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  
Old December 11th 07, 05:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default 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  
Old December 11th 07, 10:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default 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  
Old December 12th 07, 01:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
RichA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,544
Default 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  
Old December 12th 07, 02:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Jer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default 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  
Old December 13th 07, 07:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bryan Olson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.