You're welcome, photo guy

1. NEWS from CPSC and HC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission www.cpsc.gov
Health Canada www.hc-sc.gc.ca

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 11, 2012
Release #12-219

Firm's Recall Hotline: (800) 645-6687
CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908
HC Media Contact: (613) 957-2983

Nikon Recalls Rechargeable Battery Packs Sold with Digital SLR Cameras Due to Burn Hazard

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of Product: Nikon digital SLR camera battery packs

Units: About 5,100 in the United States, 1,100 in Canada and an additional 195,000 worldwide

Distributor: Nikon Inc., of Melville, N.Y.

Hazard: The battery packs can short circuit, causing them to overheat and melt, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: Nikon has received seven reports of incidents outside of the U.S. and Canada of the recalled battery packs overheating. No incidents have been reported in the U.S. or Canada. No injuries have been reported.

Description: This recall involves Nikon EN-EL 15 rechargeable lithium-ion battery packs with lot numbers E and F. The battery pack was sold with the Nikon digital SLR D800 and D7000 model cameras. The battery pack's model number "EN-EL15" and "7.0V 1900mAh 14Wh" are printed on the back of the battery pack. Only battery packs with an "E" or "F" in ninth character of the 14-digit lot number located on the back of the battery pack are included in this recall.

Sold at: Camera, office supply and mass merchandise stores, in catalogs and on various websites nationwide. They were sold with the digital SLR camera in Canada from February 2012 through March 2012 and in the U.S. from March 2012 through April 2012 for between $1,200 and $3,000.

Manufactured in: Japan and China

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled battery packs immediately, remove them from the camera and contact Nikon for a free replacement battery pack.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Nikon at (800) 645-6687 between 8 a.m. through 12 midnight ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at www.nikonusa.com

Note: Health Canada's press release is available at http://cpsr-rspc.hc-sc.gc.ca/PR-RP/recall-retrait-eng.jsp?re_id=1644

To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including a picture of the recalled product, please go to:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12219.html

To see video, go to MSNBC, it would not copy.


'First Amendment rights can be terminated': When cops, cameras don't mix
Video from March 2012 shows Chicago police taking members of the media into custody.

By Bob Sullivan

The video is chilling, but it's also a sign of the times.

"Your First Amendment rights can be terminated," yells the Chicago police officer, caught on video right before arresting two journalists outside a Chicago hospital. One, an NBC News photographer, was led away in handcuffs essentially for taking pictures in a public place. He was released only minutes later, but the damage was done. Chicago cops suffered an embarrassing "caught on tape" moment, and civil rights experts who say cops are unfairly cracking down on citizens with cameras had their iconic moment.

Tales of reporters, protestors and citizen journalists being threatened or arrested for filming law enforcement officials during disputes are on the rise, critics say, with Occupy Wall Street protests a lightning rod for these incidents. The National Press Photographers Association claims it has documented 70 such arrests since September and, in May, called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to focus attention on the issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"The First Amendment has come under assault on the streets of America," the photography association said in a letter to Holder that was also signed by several other interest groups. "Police have arrested dozens of journalists and activists simply for attempting to document political protests in public spaces.”

Such allegations are ironic, given the sharp rise in police surveillance technology, which gives cops vast capabilities to film citizens, said Catherine Crump, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney.

"It is true that Americans are photographed more and more today as they walk around in public spaces," Crump said. "And it is ironic that law enforcement agencies are objecting when the same activity is being used to film their activities. But it's not surprising because there's often a double-standard in this space."

There's always been a tense relationship between cops and cameras, but that relationship is being pushed to the brink now that half of U.S. adults carry smartphones, nearly all of them capable of filming and sharing visuals instantly with the whole world via the Internet. Cops at Occupy Wall Street protests -- such as those at Zucotti Park in New York City -- routinely deal with dozens of amateur photographers shoving cameras in their faces, many of them aggressive. It's not hard to see how the cameras can escalate an already tense situation.

But First Amendment law is clear: Citizens in public spaces have a right to film things they see in plain sight. Courts have repeatedly upheld that right in high-profile cases.

Court rulings sometimes have no bearing during intense situations, however.

"It wouldn't really matter with some police officers if you had an original copy of Bill of Rights with you," said Mickey Osterreicher, a lawyer for the press photographers association. He said he deals with new cases nearly every day involving photographers who he believes have been wrongly arrested.

"The sign on my desk that reads, 'Bang head here,' is getting worn out," he said.

In April, Connecticut's State Senate passed a law that clearly defined citizens' right to film, but the state's lower house failed to act on the measure. The proposal was introduced by Sen. Majority Leader Martin M. Looney , D-New Haven, after a series of incidents involving cops in that state's capital city. In one, a police officer is caught on camera saying “You don’t take pictures of us,” before making an arrest. In another incident, 26-year-old Luis Luna was arrested for filming an arrest, and video files on his iPhone were deleted.

"In the past several years, police officers have wrongly arrested members of public for using video cameras or cell phone cameras," said Adam Joseph, a spokesman for Looney. "In the opinion of a number of senators, there were far too many instances, and that demonstrated the right to videotape needed to be codified and is unfortunately necessary."

The proliferation of devices that can film and share has made this conflict almost inevitable, but there are other causes, too.

“So many mainstream journalists have been laid off and are freelancing,” said Osterreicher, the press association lawyer. ”Then you have people who consider themselves citizen journalists. They have ‘pro-sumer’ devices capable of taking video and still images with the same quality as pro equipment, and can share them with the world, without mainstream media. That’s something we've never seen, until recently.”

'Threatening act'
As a result, civil liberties lawyers have beaten a path to courthouses around the country, said Crump.

"We do hear about these more frequently now because everyone walks around with cell phone cameras,” she said. “Law enforcement officers sometimes react badly to this, and view it as a threatening act.”

The most celebrated case involves Simon Glik, who in 2007 filmed police arresting a homeless man near Boston Commons. Glick was arrested and charged with violating the state's wiretapping law. His case was dismissed, but he then brought a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city. In August 2011, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously in his favor.

"That decision is 24 pages of pure gold," Osterreicher said. "The judges talked about the right to record in public. They said the First Amendment right is self-evident. They took judicial notice of the fact that news is as likely to come from someone with a cellphone as anyone. And they talked about the fact that police officers … should expect to be recorded when out in public."

In March of this year, Boston paid Glik $170,000 to settle the suit.

E-mail a tip to Bob Sullivan

"It's really not up to police officers to decide what is and isn't newsworthy," Osterreicher said. "It's a shame Boston had to learn an expensive lesson."

Other rulings have offered a similarly strong endorsement of the right to film, Crump said.

"The First Amendment is strongly protective of right to video and record in public spaces. There’s obviously a good reason for that. Sunlight is the best disinfectant," she said. She said court rulings have been so consistent, she’s not worried about any weakening of the First Amendment – but she is worried about the more practical side of the problem. Glik's settlement -- most of which paid for his legal fees -- took five years to arrive. In most real-life situations, police officers have wide discretion, and few observers have the time, money or wherewithal to see a First Amendment case through to completion.

Osterreicher, both a former journalist and a reserve police officer, prefers far more practical methods. He travels the country training police officers in First Amendment law. Invited by Chicago police brass, he offered such training in advance of recent NATO meetings in Chicago, which attracted sizable protests. He thinks it worked: To his knowledge, only one photographer was arrested during those protests.

He also offers suggestions tips to would-be cop videographers.

"The First Amendment is not absolute," he said. "It is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. But the key word is ‘reasonable.’ Is it reasonable when covering a protest to ask someone to stand back or get on a sidewalk? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to expect the press to go away when there is an order to disperse? No."

One rule that is fairly absolute, he said: While there are situations when police can seize cameras and cellphones, they have no right to destroy data, such as pictures or videos, without consent from the owner. In fact, doing so could be considered destruction of evidence.

The ACLU hosts an information page designed to help amateur photographers understand their rights on its website. But Crump offered a thumbnail sketch of the law that draws an important distinction between public and private property.

"Generally, when you are in a public space where you have the right to be, you have right to photograph anything in plain view, and that includes police who are executing their duties,” she said. “But if you are on private property, the property owner gets to set the rules.”

But Osterreicher said any advice photographers receive should come with a warning: "It's complicated."

"I can't give you an answer that covers all situations. You’re going to have to make an assessment,” he said “Is this officer nonchalantly asking you to move? Or is he getting real cranky? A lot of situations can be defused with conversation. … You want it to end well.”

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.

My husband spent 28 years of rescue on the c-130s but never on skis-ahhh, the stories!

Thank you, hopefully I will never have to use it.
lyonflying

I thank you, my kids thank you, my grandkids thank you for the post.
lyonflying

we found a tempurpedic ergomatic on sale when an Art Van bought out a local store. It was horribly expensive and worth every penny. We are retired and feel we deserve the best in our old age. Sleep number or Tempurpedic is going to be like discussing Nikon or Canon.

Thank you, hubby and I enjoyed the site. We are both pilots living in Michigan.

lyonflying

Pardon the late entry, I am a month behind in my emails. My husband and I both read all five pages of replies. When hubby took his airport manager training, he was told if you see ANY suspicious actions around an airport, contact local athorities. My husband will apporach a person and ask if he can help them and his next action depends on the answer. Example: At a fenced in airport in Texas, a student returned from a solo flight, parked by the hanger and locked our 172 before going into the office for a debrief. Another plane landed and one of the two occupants went over to the 172 and used a screwdriver to jimmy the door open when another pilot came out of his hanger and confronted him. He jumped back in his plane and they took off but not before the alert pilot wrote the "n" number down on his hand. A phone call to the athorities plus radar tracking and they were caught when they landed in San Antonio. Typical drug runner tactics. Who can tell if a photographer is honestly interested in planes or if information for a future illegal activity is being gathered? Bottom line-always ask before taking pictures around an airport, there is a reason for those fences and managers.

Thanks both of you, advice I will act on. I have waited a long time for a new camera and am glad to have the guidance-don't need to make mistakes.

That answers my question. I was fairly sure that the AF 70-210 lens was good quality but not sure if it was worth the new camera. We will seriously consider your advice. Hubby wants to use fully automatic as he uses the camera for aerial shots and since he is the pilot......

Thanks for the tip, I will spend the rest of the evening at sites suggested for other people. Every tip helps.

Thank you, I am visiting the camera section in a store tomorrow to handle the Sony bodies. We do not have a camera store within 100 miles so I may end up buying on line. My husband will get a new Nikon body for Christmas for his lens.

My husband has a Nikon 4004 with a nikkor AF 1:4-5.6 70-210 lens. I have a Minolta X700 with promaster spectrum 7 2:8-80 with macro; Vivitar 70-210 1:4.5-5.6; Minolta 50mm 1:1.7; and Tokina doubler. Are our lenses worth keeping when we upgrade to dslr cameras? I found a compatable chart for the Nikon but not my Minolta/Sony. We do mainly trip, family and aerial photos.

#2