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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Dec 7, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-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.
     
    RichA, Dec 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Not4wood Guest

    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
     
    Not4wood, Dec 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They have no expectation of privacy unless they are in a private
    premise or some area where they should be able to expect privacy.
     
    RichA, Dec 11, 2007
    #3
  4. RichA

    C J Campbell Guest

    Not if the photo is for editorial use. Only commercial usage needs a
    model release.
    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.
    Depends on what you shoot them with.
     
    C J Campbell, Dec 11, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bryan Olson Guest

    IANAL, but neither is the author of the of article cited in the
    original post, so...
    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.

    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.

    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".

    [...]
    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 Olson, Dec 11, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    C J Campbell Guest

    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.
    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.
     
    C J Campbell, Dec 11, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA

    Annika1980 Guest

    Oops!
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87918091/original
     
    Annika1980, Dec 11, 2007
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Dec 12, 2007
    #8
  9. RichA

    Jer Guest


    Hint: Some trees are on public property, and some of the ones that
    aren't can be rented like a motel.
     
    Jer, Dec 12, 2007
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Burt Krages, the very author you just recommended, states:

    Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises.
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
    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.

    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.
    Yes, just as I wrote.
    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".

    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 Olson, Dec 13, 2007
    #10
  11. RichA

    dave Guest

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:17:14 -0800, C J Campbell .

    This is not real good advice. To say the couple in question can not
    "do a thing", is nonsense. Over twenty percent of the US population is
    violence prone and that is a lot of people who would be willing to "do
    a thing" if you piss them off. Best advice re photo privacy is, unless
    there are compelling reasons, do not take pictures of people who
    object. A lot of publications require a release when not legally
    needed because one is a sign that the subject will probably not go
    postal if the image is published.
     
    dave, Dec 14, 2007
    #11
  12. RichA

    Charlie Self Guest

    Only 20%? Whose study was that from?
     
    Charlie Self, Dec 14, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.