Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Twist on the right to take photographs in public
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
Aug 22, 2017 12:48:54   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
Gene51 wrote:
I don't think so. Privacy is about preserving anonymity, and usually applies to individuals, but more and more applies to places, buildings, etc. Privacy helps to keep prying eyes and ears from things that are of no concern, and is a matter of safety, and it is guaranteed in the Constitution in amendments 1, 3, 4, 9 and 14. A violation of privacy case usually involves placing a dollar value on harm to the victim's "interest in privacy," corresponding mental distress, and actual, quantifiable damages in the form of medical and other expenses resulting from the violation.

http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/invasion-of-privacy-damages-and-recovery.html

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Copyright protection is about protecting the owner's rights to intellectual property that the owner created or purchased the rights to, and the property is often is in full view or hearing range of the public. Nothing anonymous here. If someone makes money off of the display or playback of such property, copyright law is intended to ensure that the owner/creator is the recipient, and not an unauthorized third party, and provides an avenue for recovery of losses when copyright is violated. Usually they are related to the extent of the violation, and how much money was made by the accused and lost by the victim.
I don't think so. Privacy is about preserving anon... (show quote)


The right to photograph in public places and the right of the photographer to use that material in ways defined in copyright law simply are, even if you do not think so. If I choose to display anything (copyright protected or not) in public, it may be photographed. That is just a fact. It is not subject to "think so." That photograph may be used by the photographer in defined ways, say in a book on "Public Displays of Art." The photos in that book are editorial in nature. Even a picture of someone else's art. I could not use that material on the cover, since that would be a commercial use and not editorial. But I can use it.

IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE INTERSECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO PHOTOGRAPH WHEN DISPLAYING IN PUBLIC SPACES YOU ARE JUST BEING STUBBORN.

Again this is NOT something in which I would engage, yet it is what it is. It is an area of overlapping rights. There is no absolute as inconvenient as that my be for you.

Reply
Aug 22, 2017 18:42:58   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
pendennis wrote:
You may have trouble with that logic in a court of law. Depending on how state or local law is written, the owner may not need to post a sign. In most cases, ignorance is not an excuse. Private property generally carries implied rights, even if not explicitly stated. Where there is a doubt as to ownership of property (public or private) signage is often mandated. But, if you live in a "settled" area such as a town, city, etc., private property is implicitly just that, "private". Get caught violating those private property rights, and you may face arrest, or worse (depending on the mood of the owner).

Adage: Don't go trespassing in beehives, lest the bees remind you of your sin.
You may have trouble with that logic in a court of... (show quote)


In PA you can legally shoot someone on your property if you FEEL threatened.

Reply
Aug 22, 2017 19:20:54   #
pendennis
 
Architect1776 wrote:
In PA you can legally shoot someone on your property if you FEEL threatened.


Not disputing or arguing against protecting yourself on your own property. We have similar laws in Michigan. And the person defending themselves is the determiner of the threat level.

The law is clear as to threats. However, mere trespass, and taking lethal action without a personal threat, will get a manslaughter, even murder charge. The law is also clear here. In fact, a man in the next suburb felt threatened by a drunk woman, pounding on his door at around 3AM. He opened the door, determined that she was a threat because she continued to pound on the storm door; he shot her dead; he was convicted of 2nd Degree murder. And just a few months ago, a man in Detroit shot through a closed entry door, wounding two uniformed police officers, and he got a misdemeanor conviction for assault. Go figure.

Reply
 
 
Aug 25, 2017 16:24:15   #
bellizzimedia
 
editorial photography has different rules. notice the picture that was posted with the article.

Reply
Aug 25, 2017 22:28:20   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
pendennis wrote:
Not disputing or arguing against protecting yourself on your own property. We have similar laws in Michigan. And the person defending themselves is the determiner of the threat level.

The law is clear as to threats. However, mere trespass, and taking lethal action without a personal threat, will get a manslaughter, even murder charge. The law is also clear here. In fact, a man in the next suburb felt threatened by a drunk woman, pounding on his door at around 3AM. He opened the door, determined that she was a threat because she continued to pound on the storm door; he shot her dead; he was convicted of 2nd Degree murder. And just a few months ago, a man in Detroit shot through a closed entry door, wounding two uniformed police officers, and he got a misdemeanor conviction for assault. Go figure.
Not disputing or arguing against protecting yourse... (show quote)


The thing is in PA if you feel threatened deadly force can be used.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.