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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
On 2013-04-01 08:18:40 -0700, Martin Brown
said: On 01/04/2013 07:48, Danny D. wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:01:37 -0400 Scott Schuckert wrote: legally, they're a private company that's been given a monopoly contract to deliver the mail. This is interesting. So do we know what the law is about taking pictures at a private company which is open to the public? You are stood on privately owned land and the landowner has rights over what he permits when you are stood on his land. There have been a handful of very spectacular image rights cases involving photographs taken on private property that were then used in advertising campaigns. There may well be a notice on the wall stating what is permitted. Many sport venues, supermarkets and department stores have similar policies. It isn't illegal in the UK but it is civil trespass if you do not cease and desist from taking photographs on private land when asked to do so. All of that makes perfect sense for photography on private premises, such as almost all private property, some sports venues, many malls, etc, and naturally, public property where there are legitimate security concerns. However, the most interesting thing in in your post is your turn of phrase, "You are stood". Somehow that sounds as if the reader is wheeled out strapped to a hand truck, much like Hannibal Lector in "The Silence of the Lambs" and "stood" in place on the particular location. Were you perhaps looking for "are standing"? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?
Scott Schuckert wrote:
Postal Service employees, customers, cover of mail and security cameras cannot be depicted in the pictures. I think the picture that was posted had a postal service employee in it, didn't it? One could argue that the identifying features were blacked out though. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
On 3/31/2013 11:46 PM, Danny D. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:54:31 -0800 Floyd L. Davidson wrote: It is private property that is open to the public. That means you can photograph to your heart's content as long as the manager or clerks do not object. They do have the option to ask you to leave if you don't stop. Not leaving would put you in violation of tresspass laws. Do you know where we can find this written down so that I can show it to the postal service? Here, for example, is a sample pic (with identities blurred): http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/12561500.jpg The USPS is an independent government agency and not a private company Post offices are either federal buildings or leased space. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
On 4/1/2013 6:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Jennifer Murphy wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:14:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D." May I ask: Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects, is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record the transaction? I have no idea what the law is about taking the photo, but I'm pretty sure that whether anyone objects or not is irrelevent. Otherwise, I could walk into a store, take what I want, and leave. If no one objected, I'd be in the clear. So you're one of the people that claim photography will steal your soul, or at least deprive you of cash or goods? How about looking at something in a store, memorizing prices (or even writing them down!) and then buying where it is cheapest? That *does* real financial damage to all the stores where you didn't buy! There must be a law where you must buy whatever you look at in a store to protect the rights of the storekeepers everywhere! -Wolfgang I think the internet and discount houses have pretty much made "storekeepers" obsolete. Unfortunate for the purists but nonetheless true. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?
MaxD wrote:
On 4/1/2013 6:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Jennifer Murphy wrote: I have no idea what the law is about taking the photo, but I'm pretty sure that whether anyone objects or not is irrelevent. Otherwise, I could walk into a store, take what I want, and leave. If no one objected, I'd be in the clear. So you're one of the people that claim photography will steal your soul, or at least deprive you of cash or goods? How about looking at something in a store, memorizing prices (or even writing them down!) and then buying where it is cheapest? That *does* real financial damage to all the stores where you didn't buy! There must be a law where you must buy whatever you look at in a store to protect the rights of the storekeepers everywhere! I think the internet and discount houses have pretty much made "storekeepers" obsolete. Unfortunate for the purists but nonetheless true. It may be unfortunate for purists that you think that, fortunately you are wrong. -Wolfgang |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
In article
eyinternet, Roy wrote: The USPS is an independent government agency and not a private company Citation, please. The postal employees I know (including the one I live with) seem to disagree; to the point of stubbornly correcting people in conversation if they say the post office is "part of the government." The reality is probably that USPS is a unique neither-fish-nor-fowl entity, but THEY are very insistent they're a private company. Post offices are either federal buildings or leased space. Which proves? For a long time MY office was in city owned buildings, but I wasn't part of the Philadelphia government. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
On 2013-04-02 07:53:26 -0700, Scott Schuckert said:
In article eyinternet, Roy wrote: The USPS is an independent government agency and not a private company Citation, please. The postal employees I know (including the one I live with) seem to disagree; to the point of stubbornly correcting people in conversation if they say the post office is "part of the government." The reality is probably that USPS is a unique neither-fish-nor-fowl entity, but THEY are very insistent they're a private company. Post offices are either federal buildings or leased space. Which proves? For a long time MY office was in city owned buildings, but I wasn't part of the Philadelphia government. A little verifiable research provides the answers to quite a few questions regarding this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Postal_Service -- Regards, Savageduck |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
In article 2013040213025428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: A little verifiable research provides the answers to quite a few questions regarding this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Postal_Service -- Regards, Savageduck Thank you. I will throw this in the face of the Significant Other next time she starts up with the "I'm NOT a government employee!" stuff. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
On 2013-04-02 14:37:54 -0700, Scott Schuckert said:
In article 2013040213025428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: A little verifiable research provides the answers to quite a few questions regarding this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Postal_Service -- Regards, Savageduck Thank you. I will throw this in the face of the Significant Other next time she starts up with the "I'm NOT a government employee!" stuff. The whole issue of the private company vs Government agency argument can be confusing, mainly due to the way it is funded and the employees' pension fund is dealt with. Note: that due to a bunch of Federal budget changes, postal workers are no longer part of the Civil Service Retirement System and no longer have payroll deductions into that system. Your wife should be part whatever Postal Civil Service Retirement Service provides. Due to this seperation she might not consider herself a "Government employee", but she should check and confirm that the term "Civil Servant" is part of how her wages are paid, and what she is going to depend on regarding her pension. Then, in the Wikipedia article above there is the confusing statement, "The United States Postal Service is a Fortune 500 company." That of course conflicts with the opening statement, "The USPS is an independant agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. Once one checks to discover that there is no trading of the USPS on the NYSE or NASDAQ that issue is a little clearer. The Fortune 500 ranking is due to its status as the USA's second largest civilian employer with 574,000 personnel (as of 2011). The other thing to consider is crimes associated with Postal Service in the USA is dealt with by a Federal Law enforcement agency, and all associated Postal crimes are Federal crimes punishable in Federal Court, not State or local ordinances. So while you wife might, as a Postal Worker, feel abandoned by the US government in many ways, she is still intrinsically part of it, and can wear the label "Civil Servant" with honor. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2013040215500089814-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... On 2013-04-02 14:37:54 -0700, Scott Schuckert said: In article 2013040213025428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: A little verifiable research provides the answers to quite a few questions regarding this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Postal_Service -- Regards, Savageduck Thank you. I will throw this in the face of the Significant Other next time she starts up with the "I'm NOT a government employee!" stuff. The whole issue of the private company vs Government agency argument can be confusing, mainly due to the way it is funded and the employees' pension fund is dealt with. Note: that due to a bunch of Federal budget changes, postal workers are no longer part of the Civil Service Retirement System and no longer have payroll deductions into that system. Your wife should be part whatever Postal Civil Service Retirement Service provides. Due to this seperation she might not consider herself a "Government employee", but she should check and confirm that the term "Civil Servant" is part of how her wages are paid, and what she is going to depend on regarding her pension. Then, in the Wikipedia article above there is the confusing statement, "The United States Postal Service is a Fortune 500 company." That of course conflicts with the opening statement, "The USPS is an independant agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. Once one checks to discover that there is no trading of the USPS on the NYSE or NASDAQ that issue is a little clearer. The Fortune 500 ranking is due to its status as the USA's second largest civilian employer with 574,000 personnel (as of 2011). The other thing to consider is crimes associated with Postal Service in the USA is dealt with by a Federal Law enforcement agency, and all associated Postal crimes are Federal crimes punishable in Federal Court, not State or local ordinances. So while you wife might, as a Postal Worker, feel abandoned by the US government in many ways, she is still intrinsically part of it, and can wear the label "Civil Servant" with honor. 10-4. There is "a rat" in "separate". -- Frank ess |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Elderly female clerk dies after being set on fire by negro during robbery. | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 27th 12 10:25 PM |
Is Microsoft Office Picture Manager Any Good? | Dudley Hanks[_2_] | Digital Photography | 5 | July 29th 08 03:08 PM |
Nikon Picture Project illegal operation error | Lou | Digital Photography | 2 | January 25th 06 10:06 AM |