It's insightful to back off a bit and learn from the Israeli experience in the last few decades.
1. Open carry. Wherever you go in Israel you are likely to run into soldiers on leave. And the soldiers, men and women, schlep their rifles with them. Typically M4 (essentially a modernized M-16). But recently you see the Israeli "Tavor" bullpup style rifle. An excellent deterrent to crime and terrorism and sometimes there to stop an attack.
2. Open and concealed carry of pistols. The Israelis have a program where teachers and other school personnel can get a CCW. The training is thorough and superb. I'm not sure about the technicalities of "open" and "concealed" in Israel. I noticed when I saw school groups on field trips, some of the adults did not hide the pistols carried typically in simple holsters on the belt strong side. Everyone considers this sort of thing normal, and frankly to me, reassuring.
3. Open and concealed carry of pistols. Other civilians can also apply for a pistol carry permit. The training, as with teachers, is thorough and superb. There have been a number of attempted terrorist attacks which were cut short by armed civilians, both school personnel and other civilians.

Being surrounded by maniac nations which regularly launch wars of extermination...not to mention terrorism...the Israelis have become very pragmatic and realistic about armed civilians as a deterrent to terrorism and other crimes of violence. It would be foolish not to learn from their painful experiences.

And as for coffee, it is common to see both soldiers and armed civilians of both sexes at coffee shops. No one minds, sensible people appreciate the added security. And BTW, Israeli coffee is superb.

There are many reasons to avoid Starbucks and this is one of them.

I have frequently visited Seattle, whelping place of Starbucks. Many people there consider Starbucks' coffee second-rate, and Starbucks' prices larceny.

Way back when, I used to use a black Nikkormat and a chrome one. Each was loaded with different film and it was easy to remember which was which.

The new colored cameras look less "professional." This can be an advantage in causing park rangers and other bureaucrats to be less likely to shake you down for permits. OTOH, maybe a sherbet colored camera is less impressive to subjects than is a giant black Nikon...

I picked one up just after Halloween for $20. I forget what fog juice cost but it goes a long way. You can get scented fog juice if you like. This time of year they're widely available at party stores and elsewhere. Cheap ones I think are from about $30-$50. High-end ones from theatrical supply stores are much more.

Make sure no one has asthma or breathing difficulties, and have a way to clear the fog...

Very good point: put the group in an arc so they are close to equal distance from the lens.

The above "theory" is not only theory; it is factual and correct. So the rule of thumb is to focus on a point about 1/3 into the hoped for depth of field. Bear in mind that depending on your F-stop and lens, you still may or may not have the required depth of field for acceptable sharpness over the depth of the whole group...

I remember once shooting a large family get together ... a gathering never to be repeated. I packed everyone tight as possible, shot at F-16, used a tripod, and shot a stack of photos... and it worked out okay.

ANOTHER LITTLE-KNOWN MEMORIAL.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/228

Not far from Hiway 5 near Mt. Shasta in Northern California. Very moving. A good place for a rest stop or quiet contemplation. It's wheelchair accessible, too. I found the memorial by accident, was surprised it's so little known. Possibly because it's a little off the beaten path.

Because the mainstream media detests our military, detests America, and detests those who show love and admiration for our military and our country and our American values. Not surprising that the media spiked this story.

What wonderfully evocative images! There's nothing like good b&w!

I'm familiar with the concept. It has been repudiated by courts in the USA, UK, and elsewhere. It is no substitute for timely registration of copyright. Registration is required anyhow, to file a lawsuit. If you file without registering you'll be thrown out of court.

As long as I'm sitting here debunking, may as well also debunk "poor man's copyright." (Herein, "PMC") PMC is the notion that it's good enough to send copies of the work to yourself by dated registered mail. The myth of PMC is so widespread that even the copyright office has warned people it is worthless:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

The first, last, and foremost thing every photographer should know about copyright is that timely registration is the key to protecting one's work and enforcing copyright against thieves.

Wall-E is quite the legal Eagle; very few people realize that posting on the web does not necessarily constitute "publication" in the context of copyright law. The copyright office refuses to take a position. My own position is that it depends on the context and purpose of the posting.

Here's an interesting few words from a site with a lot of legal info, which also clarifies the 3-month grace period:

Unfortunately, there is no consensus yet on whether posting a work online qualifies as a legal “publication.” The Copyright Office has refused to offer an opinion. Some people think posting online qualifies as publication because it allows multiple people in multiple locations to view the work at the same time, which is analogous to print publication. Also, in fact your computer technically makes a “copy” of the work when it displays the web page.

Once a work is online, it is very easy for viewers to make printouts of the work, which is also creating a copy. However, the law is clear that unauthorized copying does not count as a legal publication. Therefore, if you post your work with a copyright notice (and, for good measure, a clear statement that it may not be copied without your permission), there’s a good argument that you have not made copies of your work available to the public, and thus your posting is not a legal “publication.”

So in the final analysis, you can decide whether you consider your online posting to be a legal “publication.” The advantage to calling it “published” comes in the registration process.

Normally, if you register your copyright before an infringement happens, that prior registration entitles you to collect statutory damages and your attorneys’ fees. If you wait until after the infringement occurs to register, you don’t qualify for those extra remedies. That makes it harder to go after the infringer (their risk upon being found liable is less, so your bargaining power to stop infringement and get paid for it is less). (See Legalities 1)

However, for published works, there is an exception to this rule. The law provides a 3-month grace period: if you register a published work within 3 months after the date it was published, you would still be entitled to statutory damages and attorneys’ fees even if the infringement happened before you registered.

As we know, works can be copied instantly as soon as they go online. So, it is often more advantageous to register your online works as published works – that way you get the 3-month grace period to register them and still get full protection.


Much of copyright law is straightforward, but this issue of what constitutes publication is not. Now you see why I try to register BEFORE any possible publication, i.e., before the works leave my computer. Or if there is possible publication, then I register within the 3-month window and give the date of "publication" on the registration paperwork.

The first part, that the statutory damages are diluted by the number of photos in a registration, is flatly wrong. I suspect there was miscommunication and the attorney was referring to registration of a single "collective work" which incorporated numerous copyrightable elements. For example, an anthology of poems might have an issue where you'd be limited to suing for infringement of the single "work" rather than for numerous poems.

The matter of registration after "publishing" is complicated, far too much so to fully discuss here. My own policy and that recommended by most experts is to register BEFORE any publication or distribution, whenever possible.

As to whether distribution on the web constitutes publication, and the ramifications of that question, there seems to be a lot of legal argument. That's why I register BEFORE publication.

I TAKE KEYBOARD IN HAND TO CORRECT SOME ERRORS ABOVE:

As to "no need to go further," ... WRONG. The key to protecting and enforcing your copyright is timely registration.

The above is also in error as to the legal process. If the work is timely registered and you are ripped off by the right type of thief, it is often possible to get an attorney to take the case on a contingency basis. Nor are such cases typically very long. Copyright cases often move very quickly and often are promptly settled out of court once the thief releases you are serious, rather than just another chump photographer to be ripped off.

The last paragraph above is also misleading. Many experienced photographers are serious about going after thieves. Griecco, for example, not only has successfully taught numerous hard lessons to numerous thieves, he is active in educating other photographers about their rights.

I COMMENT ON THE ABOVE:
It is 100% incorrect that statutory damages are diluted by the number of images in the registration. The fact is that each timely-registered image is eligible for full statutory damages, which can be as high as $150,000 per image.

The last paragraph above is also 100% incorrect. Publishing on the web does not bring the protection that you would get by timely-registration.