chrome98 Loc: Hannibal, MO

I shot some pics in a local coffee shop for the owner. I had a release from the owner and all persons in the shots. Here's the kicker... One of the people in a shot that was used for advertising was a disabled person with a service dog. Upon seeing the advertising that included the shot, the health department issued the owner a citation without regard to ADA rules. The owner has asked me to stop using the photo and also wants to retract the release that was given. In addition the health department won't retract the citation unless I provide the information for the person with the dog.

IMO This business is being unfairly cited by a Health Dept. that is ignoring federal law (ADA). There is no ADA requirement for the animal to be identified as a service animal with a vest or ID or anything else. As a matter of fact, it is suggested that you don't since it draws attention to the animal.

I am refusing all of these requests and have also reported the Health Dept using the ADA hotline.

I am disabled myself and use a service dog. I feel I have to uphold the rights of the disabled in this case.

Just FYI even a business cannot truly verify a service animal. There are only two questions that may be asked of a person claiming they have a service animal:

1. Is this a service dog? (yes/no)
2. Does your animal perform services connected with your disability? (yes/no)

Just wondering if I should give everyone what they want or stand against the injustice. I know what I "should" do, but there are others involved here.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I would suggest you take to an attorney on this one.The "legal" information you will get here is almost certainly going to be opinions, not legal advice.

I have seen so-called legal advice given here and much of it is appalling in its ignorance.

chrome98 Loc: Hannibal, MO

True, I may have to do that. But the point of my question was not for legal advise but to see what others would do in this case. I've never had anyone ask for a release retraction and just wondering if there is a typical unwritten photog rule or wisdom, i.e. - "Generally, if someone asks for a retraction, just give it to them."

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

Unless I am missing something "private NOT public place" disabled person or not, has the right to privacy.

chrome98 Loc: Hannibal, MO

Not sure of your point... Do you mean that the person with the dog should not have to reveal themselves for any reason? If so, I would agree.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Personally, I would give it to them. Not worth the trouble to fight it.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

I would totally agree with this, especially if you want to stay 'friendly' and welcome in the coffee shop. Plus, if the person with the service dog has justification, there should be no problem giving the information to the Health Department.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

This sounds like a ridiculous situation. Helper animals are allowed where pets are not. No health dept can supercede that. Even the post office allows seeing eye dogs. We have a local PO with what I think is an amusing sign out front, "Only Seeing Eye Dogs Allowed Inside." No people? I took a picture of it, and if I ever locate it, I'll post it.

I would not rescind the release, but I wouldn't use the picture of him anymore. Sounds like time for a counter suits - Fight City Hall!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Chrome, maybe this is tricky. You probably know the ADAs better than all of us. The post office is not a restaurant. And if it were a federal coffee shop maybe it would be different. I would not want to see you with a huge legal bill over you rights. As much as the ignorant badmouth them, this is a perfect situation for the civil liberties union to possibly offer some guidance.
Maybe the owner has some time for you to sort this out before the fine increases. You may be between a rock and another rock here.
I'll stay tuned. Good luck.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Agreed, this is a sticky situation. As much as I dislike the organization, I think this is just the kind of case that the ACLU would like to get their teeth into!

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

It appears very simple to me:
Your business is with the coffee shop owner. If he wishes you to cease using photos he contracted for, then you must decide whether or not you want to comply.
He is the one dealing with the Health Dept. If he doesn't want to challenge them, then that issue is resolved.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

If it were me...and it was one shot out of several...I'd just stop using it...make the owner happy, and live to shoot another day.

Why piss off a person who's a potential client worth more business...?

Make a big show out of dumping the photo and "helping them out..."

It's a win-win.

chrome98 Loc: Hannibal, MO

UPDATE:

It appears that I did the right thing by calling the ADA hotline. As you can probably tell, I had more vested in this situation than just a release retraction, and more than most photog's would have.

The Dept of Justice contacted the Health Dept and confirmed what I had reported. The Health Dept just called me and apologized. They will now schedule a refresher course on ADA for all employees to avert a $50,000 fine and apologized profusely for the erred situation they created. In addition they contacted the business owner to inform him that the citation was in error, had been withdrawn and apologized to him as well.

I'm glad I stood up for my, the disabled person and the business owner's rights. More people are now educated in regards to ADA compliance, including some of you.

The photos were not taken nor used to test anyone on ADA compliance but it appears that they did just that. In the end, I'm glad they did.

Thanks for all of the opinions and comments. I'm about to go have a cup of coffee with an innocent and relieved business owner.

Cheers!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Perfect outcome!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Glad to hear it.