1st Amendment Right to photograph?
Feb 2, 2013 06:37:50 #
Ever been to a professional ball game or watched one on TV? Lots of privacy rights being violated.
Feb 2, 2013 07:42:45 #
Common courtesy and common sense are getting rare. Look at government, shootings ect. If asked he should have deleted the photo of the women. He was selling a small percentage of the photos.(what's small). The right of not wanting their photo taken is just as important.
Feb 2, 2013 07:52:11 #
sarge69 wrote:
My first thought was also he had a right to take the photos in a public place. But then I thought of it as one woman objected.
I don't care if he is in a public area, if a person is the subject of his photo, that person should be asked if they object. If they do, they are off limits. He refused to delete a picture of a person who found out he was taking her picture and that is wrong. He has infringed on HER rights even with a telephoto lens.
Sarge69
I don't care if he is in a public area, if a person is the subject of his photo, that person should be asked if they object. If they do, they are off limits. He refused to delete a picture of a person who found out he was taking her picture and that is wrong. He has infringed on HER rights even with a telephoto lens.
Sarge69
Sarge69; with all respect, you are wrong, did government ask your permit to take picture of you in public place?, or the business ask for your permit to take picture of you on stores.?
Law shall rule equaly for all, if she does not want to photographer take picture of her, so she must used a Burka.
;-)
Feb 2, 2013 07:59:14 #
Radioman
Loc: Ontario Canada
The "blanket ban" that they gave him IS a violation of his rights...that's the issue.
And there is no way that the ban will survive the Supreme court if it ever gets there...[/quote]
Nope, owners can ban someone from their premises for any reason unless it is discriminatory...age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. or that person has a legal right to enter, such as a police officer with a search warrant.
All the owner has to do is ask you to leave and he/she does not even have to give a reason. Of course, if the owner said "I want you to leave because you are an old gay disabled Hispanic," that would be illegal. 8-)[/quote]
**********
Some points to consider:
""Nope, owners can ban someone from their premises for any reason unless it is discriminatory...age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. ""
Is not banning a person because they are a photographer "discriminatory" ?
""All the owner has to do is ask you to leave and he/she does not even have to give a reason.""
He was not in their store(s) ???????
Having noted this - if a photographer, without permission, took close-up pictures of my children, refused to delete them when requested, and posted them on Fliker, I would be VERY upset.
I suspect that there is more to this story than is shown in that news article.
And there is no way that the ban will survive the Supreme court if it ever gets there...[/quote]
Nope, owners can ban someone from their premises for any reason unless it is discriminatory...age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. or that person has a legal right to enter, such as a police officer with a search warrant.
All the owner has to do is ask you to leave and he/she does not even have to give a reason. Of course, if the owner said "I want you to leave because you are an old gay disabled Hispanic," that would be illegal. 8-)[/quote]
**********
Some points to consider:
""Nope, owners can ban someone from their premises for any reason unless it is discriminatory...age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. ""
Is not banning a person because they are a photographer "discriminatory" ?
""All the owner has to do is ask you to leave and he/she does not even have to give a reason.""
He was not in their store(s) ???????
Having noted this - if a photographer, without permission, took close-up pictures of my children, refused to delete them when requested, and posted them on Fliker, I would be VERY upset.
I suspect that there is more to this story than is shown in that news article.
Feb 2, 2013 08:05:22 #
We all know that we have the right to photograph people in public places...I myself have had people in my face as to why I am taking a photo of someone...I get annoyed if that person isn't even the subject ..just some nosey bystander that wants to get into a pissing match with me..mostly I think it's because I am a female therefore they feel they can intimidate me..but I bite my tongue and usually comply by leaving quickly or answering them politely..
I have however met up with other photographers and many to me seem "creepy" and I would be unsettled by them taking pictures of me too..certainly there needs to be some common sense when doing anything in public..respecting others trumps the fact that we have a right to do something..
There are 2 sides to that story..it is very possible that his behavior could be making people there uncomfortable..every situation is different..there will always be jerks on both sides of an issue....
I have however met up with other photographers and many to me seem "creepy" and I would be unsettled by them taking pictures of me too..certainly there needs to be some common sense when doing anything in public..respecting others trumps the fact that we have a right to do something..
There are 2 sides to that story..it is very possible that his behavior could be making people there uncomfortable..every situation is different..there will always be jerks on both sides of an issue....
Feb 2, 2013 08:38:22 #
ocbeyer wrote:
Ever been to a professional ball game or watched one on TV? Lots of privacy rights being violated.
You are right and I never listed some claim privacy unless a mafia boss or some one making ilegal things.
Feb 2, 2013 08:42:50 #
Bultaco wrote:
Common courtesy and common sense are getting rare. Look at government, shootings ect. If asked he should have deleted the photo of the women. He was selling a small percentage of the photos.(what's small). The right of not wanting their photo taken is just as important.
I will like to know if some one can claim to a news paper to collect all selled news paper or tabloid because he or she is on the news.? or suspend a tv program for been there without their permit.
For sure he or she will said. Hey guys did you see me on Tv?
Feb 2, 2013 08:44:15 #
People are all over the place using Smart phones to take pictures and nobody seems to question that. What are the police going to do ? Stop all the people with these phones.
Feb 2, 2013 08:57:22 #
Radioman wrote:
The "blanket ban" that they gave him IS a violation of his rights...that's the issue.
And there is no way that the ban will survive the Supreme court if it ever gets there...
And there is no way that the ban will survive the Supreme court if it ever gets there...
Nope, owners can ban someone from their premises for any reason unless it is discriminatory...age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. or that person has a legal right to enter, such as a police officer with a search warrant.
All the owner has to do is ask you to leave and he/she does not even have to give a reason. Of course, if the owner said "I want you to leave because you are an old gay disabled Hispanic," that would be illegal. 8-)[/quote]
**********
Some points to consider:
""Nope, owners can ban someone from their premises for any reason unless it is discriminatory...age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. ""
Is not banning a person because they are a photographer "discriminatory" ?
""All the owner has to do is ask you to leave and he/she does not even have to give a reason.""
He was not in their store(s) ???????
Having noted this - if a photographer, without permission, took close-up pictures of my children, refused to delete them when requested, and posted them on Fliker, I would be VERY upset.
I suspect that there is more to this story than is shown in that news article.[/quote]
the owner said "I want you to leave to a person who is not disturbing in the store has most to loss than to win, the stores and business place are not a residency or shellter of the owner.
Certenly there are many laws that shall be best interpreted or amenmended.
If thighs continue as are going the world will an inferno. in a restourant, stores medical clinic lobby is very difficult arguee right of privacy , another things is on restourant restroom, and reserved room.
On concern to photo of your children in flicker, is elastic because many kidnaped children parents publicity it and is helpfull. This hysteria comes from celebreties ban paparasis with the double standard to win publicity.
There are more unmoral thing and facts in the world than that and nobody worried.
Fellows is more important freedom of expresion in public place than you imagine. I don't surrend my right to take picture in public place.
Feb 2, 2013 09:02:07 #
It is hard to imagine taking pictures as "speech". The photographer is not expressing him/herself in any manner. Peeking into your neighbor's yard is not speech.
A brief quote about privacy:
<<Modern tort law
In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[6]
Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.
Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.
Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits.>>
A brief quote about privacy:
<<Modern tort law
In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[6]
Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.
Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.
Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits.>>
Feb 2, 2013 09:22:25 #
Scott is within his rights to shoot from a public space. There is no argument about this a question of law in the United States, (or in Canada where I live.)
Speaking from a Canadian legal perspective, the limitations on the right to photograph in a public space are only with respect to Criminal Harassment, (which is defined as an act of stalking and applies to an individual who is repeatedly pursued or laid in wait for--with or without a camera); and voyeurism which requires a photographer to use means to take images where the reasonable person has an expectation of privacy, (e.g. shoe phones to look up a dress, or using telephoto lenses to look into a person's bedroom from across the street.)
Publishing images is a different matter. Publishing includes putting the image on Flickr, and a subject who is not captured "incidentally", (e.g. as part of a crowd), may act through civil proceeding for an injunction against publication, and or damages in certain circumstances. Publishing an image that is in the main a photograph of a copywritten work, falls into the same category. Using an image of a person or copywritten work to endorse or advertise a product may also entail civil liability. Publishing an image of a person who is protected by a witness or other protection program can also entail liability. And publishing an image taken from a public space which endangers national security can also get the photographer in legal hot water.
Speaking from a Canadian legal perspective, the limitations on the right to photograph in a public space are only with respect to Criminal Harassment, (which is defined as an act of stalking and applies to an individual who is repeatedly pursued or laid in wait for--with or without a camera); and voyeurism which requires a photographer to use means to take images where the reasonable person has an expectation of privacy, (e.g. shoe phones to look up a dress, or using telephoto lenses to look into a person's bedroom from across the street.)
Publishing images is a different matter. Publishing includes putting the image on Flickr, and a subject who is not captured "incidentally", (e.g. as part of a crowd), may act through civil proceeding for an injunction against publication, and or damages in certain circumstances. Publishing an image that is in the main a photograph of a copywritten work, falls into the same category. Using an image of a person or copywritten work to endorse or advertise a product may also entail civil liability. Publishing an image of a person who is protected by a witness or other protection program can also entail liability. And publishing an image taken from a public space which endangers national security can also get the photographer in legal hot water.
Feb 2, 2013 09:25:50 #
William Kemp
Loc: Letts, Iowa
Let me see, the citizen is not in a public place and protected from being photographed but in a public place and cannot object to being photographed. the only difference is who takes the picture. I'm sure the police would have a different view when they stalk someone they think may do something wrong.
Feb 2, 2013 09:31:08 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
I find your comment offensive and wish you to be censored from this and any forum, anywhere on the internet. You'd be happy with this statement?
This is why we have a 2nd amendment, it protects the first... and all the others.
The soviet socialist republic ofVermont has violated his first amendment rights, and i would be happy to join in a class action lawsuit to support this mans right to enter any establishment that bars him based solely on him simply exercising his first amendment rights. Any more then if he was attending a (for instance) catholic church and they decided THAT wasn't cool- he's not allowed anywhere in that town... you can't see this for what it is???
The sheep of this country will cause it's ruin.
This is why we have a 2nd amendment, it protects the first... and all the others.
The soviet socialist republic ofVermont has violated his first amendment rights, and i would be happy to join in a class action lawsuit to support this mans right to enter any establishment that bars him based solely on him simply exercising his first amendment rights. Any more then if he was attending a (for instance) catholic church and they decided THAT wasn't cool- he's not allowed anywhere in that town... you can't see this for what it is???
The sheep of this country will cause it's ruin.
Mallardo wrote:
Rights, rights, rights. I get so sick of people whining about rights getting violated but never talking about the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If nothing else, it's about simple common courtesy. You remember that, it was an ideal that our parents lived by. Just me 2 cents.
Mallardo wrote:
Rights, rights, rights. I get so sick of people whining about rights getting violated but never talking about the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If nothing else, it's about simple common courtesy. You remember that, it was an ideal that our parents lived by. Just me 2 cents.
Feb 2, 2013 09:35:21 #
Nobody including the police have a right to delete or destroy images that you have captured. The police may impound a memory card if they have reasonable grounds to believe that it contains evidence which could be used in a criminal proceeding which may be destroyed by the owner of the image, (i.e. the photographer.) They cannot destroy the image or publish it, and they have to return the memory card with the images intact at the end of an investigation or prosecution. I think that there is also a limitation with respect to newsworthy images such that the police cannot impound a reporter's camera or memory card to delay or prevent publication.
Feb 2, 2013 09:35:40 #
rayford2
Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
LilySnape wrote:
as new photographer i think his first amendment rigtphts were indeed violated. To me taking photos in a public place with or without people in the pics it's a given rigth, however if you focus on an specific subject as that woman who asked to delete the pictures then yes one should ask. However being banned from places he doesn't even enters is plainly unfair
If he never enters these places why should he care if he's banned or not?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.