Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"Because of 9-11";cops think they can do anything they wan..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 3:03:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Recently, 2 rather disturbing incidents in New York City regarding
photography have been reported on the web. The first was by an NYCT
employee taking photos in Manhattan. He was taking a photo in the
subway when a cop "sidled" up to him and the guy explained he was an
NYCT employee. The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.
Another incident just reported was someone taking photos of buses from
a public street. A supervisor called the police on him and they said
"photography of any NYC Transit vehicle is illegal and I could take
your camera but I won't". First of all there is no ban on photography
on NYC subways. The "proposed ban" was a $25 fine, the cops seem to be
going well beyond even the proposed rule!
In the 2nd incident which is similar to encounters with NJT Police, the
person was on a public street beyond the authority of NYCT rules.
New York and many places in America are becoming more like the USSR.
Its too bad the media fails to realize this is going on. How can we
stand for this? For myself, I avoid problems. I don't want to risk
being arrested or having my camera seized. So I stick to shooting
nature and isolated railroads where no one will bother me. I now live
in fear of the government. Its out of control. Police used to follow
the law, now it just seems like they can do anything they want "because
of 9-11".

More about : cops wan

Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:39:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

--
There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
Remove *flaps* to reply

<qtraindash7@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1116136997.601260.244950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Recently, 2 rather disturbing incidents in New York City regarding
> photography have been reported on the web. The first was by an NYCT
> employee taking photos in Manhattan. He was taking a photo in the
> subway when a cop "sidled" up to him and the guy explained he was an
> NYCT employee. The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
> your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
> be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.

LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the big
bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --
however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.

> Another incident just reported was someone taking photos of buses from
> a public street. A supervisor called the police on him and they said
> "photography of any NYC Transit vehicle is illegal and I could take
> your camera but I won't". First of all there is no ban on photography
> on NYC subways. The "proposed ban" was a $25 fine, the cops seem to be
> going well beyond even the proposed rule!

sounds like a good rule to me - so follow it and stop bitching....

> In the 2nd incident which is similar to encounters with NJT Police, the
> person was on a public street beyond the authority of NYCT rules.
> New York and many places in America are becoming more like the USSR.
> Its too bad the media fails to realize this is going on. How can we
> stand for this? For myself, I avoid problems. I don't want to risk
> being arrested or having my camera seized. So I stick to shooting
> nature and isolated railroads where no one will bother me. I now live
> in fear of the government. Its out of control. Police used to follow
> the law, now it just seems like they can do anything they want "because
> of 9-11".

Your going overboard - slow down a bit and take a breather
May 15, 2005 6:21:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

qtraindash7@optonline.net wrote:

> For myself, I avoid problems. I don't want to risk
> being arrested or having my camera seized.
> nature and isolated railroads where no one will bother me.

I too have shied away from a few shots for this same reason.

But I was harassed years before 9/11 at the Atlanta Olympic games in 1996. I
was walking to the public rail station and saw 5 orange tanker trucks lined
up in a row at a "tank farm" and took a shot of them sitting there as I
walked by. A cop yelled at me, came over, took my camera and threatened to
remove the film for "security" reasons....Needless to say I was LIVID but
stayed calm, explained I lived nearby and wasn't a "terrorist" so he
handed it back with a warning.


> I now live
> in fear of the government. Its out of control. Police used to follow
> the law, now it just seems like they can do anything they want "because
> of 9-11".

Not only are the police doing anything they want, the whole government is to
everyone in this country. All they have to say is "It's because of the
terrorists" and they have free reign.

--

Stacey
May 15, 2005 11:46:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

How are they going to know if someone is taking a photo with a mobile phone?

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3eo838F467skU1@individual.net...
> qtraindash7@optonline.net wrote:
>
>> For myself, I avoid problems. I don't want to risk
>> being arrested or having my camera seized.
>> nature and isolated railroads where no one will bother me.
>
> I too have shied away from a few shots for this same reason.
>
> But I was harassed years before 9/11 at the Atlanta Olympic games in 1996.
> I
> was walking to the public rail station and saw 5 orange tanker trucks
> lined
> up in a row at a "tank farm" and took a shot of them sitting there as I
> walked by. A cop yelled at me, came over, took my camera and threatened to
> remove the film for "security" reasons....Needless to say I was LIVID but
> stayed calm, explained I lived nearby and wasn't a "terrorist" so he
> handed it back with a warning.
>
>
>> I now live
>> in fear of the government. Its out of control. Police used to follow
>> the law, now it just seems like they can do anything they want "because
>> of 9-11".
>
> Not only are the police doing anything they want, the whole government is
> to
> everyone in this country. All they have to say is "It's because of the
> terrorists" and they have free reign.
>
> --
>
> Stacey
May 15, 2005 11:46:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

DOD rules require that if you work in a "SECRET" area you can bring in a
cell phone but it must be off. No camera phones at all off or not. In fact,
if a camera phone is brought into a secret work area it's to be confiscated
and destroyed. In a Top Secret area you can't bring in any cell phone off or
not.

> On a related subject, When I went to a Verizon store in Huntsville, AL
> recently, I saw droves of cubicle-dwellers desperate to exchange their
> camera phones for a non-camera type. Apparently a big fat juicy Department
> of Defense contract had been let out and one of the requirements for the
> companies was NO EMPLOYEE CAMERA PHONES AT WORK. The next day security was
> going to confiscate them as the badged and scanned employees went in the
> door. That went for /everybody/ in the sprawling office building, not just
> the people in the department doing that particular DoD work.
>
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 11:56:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Traitor Stacey wrote in part:


>
> Not only are the police doing anything they want, the whole government is to
> everyone in this country. All they have to say is "It's because of the
> terrorists" and they have free reign.
>

Hmmm. Anti-American speech. Emboldens the terrists. Sounds like
something an "enemy combatant" might say. Off to GITMO with you!

That's a cool 500 Patriot Points right there! HOO-AH!



--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 1:53:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 14 May 2005 23:03:17 -0700, qtraindash7@optonline.net wrote:

>The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
>your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
>be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.

That's abusive language? Oh you poor lambs...



andyt
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 2:12:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> qtraindash7@optonline.net wrote:
>
>
>> For myself, I avoid problems. I don't want to risk
>>being arrested or having my camera seized.
>>nature and isolated railroads where no one will bother me.
>
>
> I too have shied away from a few shots for this same reason.
>
> But I was harassed years before 9/11 at the Atlanta Olympic games in 1996. I
> was walking to the public rail station and saw 5 orange tanker trucks lined
> up in a row at a "tank farm" and took a shot of them sitting there as I
> walked by. A cop yelled at me, came over, took my camera and threatened to
> remove the film for "security" reasons....Needless to say I was LIVID but
> stayed calm, explained I lived nearby and wasn't a "terrorist" so he
> handed it back with a warning.
>
>
>
>>I now live
>>in fear of the government. Its out of control. Police used to follow
>>the law, now it just seems like they can do anything they want "because
>>of 9-11".
>
>
> Not only are the police doing anything they want, the whole government is to
> everyone in this country. All they have to say is "It's because of the
> terrorists" and they have free reign.
>
Oh? And what have they done TO YOU? I keep hearing this silliness, but
it is meaningless unless you have a specific incident to report.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:49:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:uxDhe.1693$M36.1426@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> On a related subject, When I went to a Verizon store in Huntsville, AL
> recently, I saw droves of cubicle-dwellers desperate to exchange their
> camera phones for a non-camera type. Apparently a big fat juicy Department
> of Defense contract had been let out and one of the requirements for the
> companies was NO EMPLOYEE CAMERA PHONES AT WORK.

I taught an on-site course recently for employees of a company that does
defense work. At the entrance was a large sign saying "COMPANY POLICY IS
THAT NO CELL PHONES MAY BE BROUGHT INTO THE BUILDING."
May 15, 2005 7:16:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<qtraindash7@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1116136997.601260.244950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>

They used 9-11 as a way to invade an innocent country killing 10's of
thousands of innocent people (including women and children), what makes you
think they cant use 9-11 to take your camera away.

Musty
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:16:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> <qtraindash7@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1116136997.601260.244950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
>
> They used 9-11 as a way to invade an innocent country killing 10's of
> thousands of innocent people (including women and children), what makes you
> think they cant use 9-11 to take your camera away.
>
> Musty
>
>
Why would anyone want to?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:39:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yeah that's the mentality in government these days. And we (barely)
re-elected the facsist party to another 4years in the White House.
I don't want to get political though, it seems everyone in government,
whether they are an elephant or a donkey, is willing to invade every
aspect of people's lives. So much for the Republican belief of "less
government, less federal control".
The USA seems to be ill with a severe case of paranoia. This is a great
opportunity for the drug companies that make drugs like Celexa and
Paxil to cash in! :-0
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:40:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well it's threatening language, the cop is trying to use his authority
as police officer to make an unconstitutional arrest and seizure.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:44:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<qtraindash7@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1116136997.601260.244950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Recently, 2 rather disturbing incidents in New York City regarding
> photography have been reported on the web. The first was by an NYCT
> employee taking photos in Manhattan. He was taking a photo in the
> subway when a cop "sidled" up to him and the guy explained he was an
> NYCT employee. The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
> your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
> be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.

That's abusive language? If that counts as abusive language and is grounds
for a dismissal, then it's no wonder your country is in such a mess.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:44:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ivor Floppy wrote:
> <qtraindash7@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1116136997.601260.244950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Recently, 2 rather disturbing incidents in New York City regarding
>>photography have been reported on the web. The first was by an NYCT
>>employee taking photos in Manhattan. He was taking a photo in the
>>subway when a cop "sidled" up to him and the guy explained he was an
>>NYCT employee. The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
>>your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
>>be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.
>
>
> That's abusive language? If that counts as abusive language and is grounds
> for a dismissal, then it's no wonder your country is in such a mess.
>
>
Actually, in New York, that would probably be a very polite comment.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 7:45:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I hope that they do something against spam what appears
to come from DoD computers. I really hope that they don't
come from there.

Toomas


"mcl" <no_spam_levinemc_no_spam_@_no_spam_charter.net_no_spam> wrote in message news:waGhe.14809$sV7.12326@fe02.lga...
> DOD rules require that if you work in a "SECRET" area you can bring in a
> cell phone but it must be off. No camera phones at all off or not. In fact,
> if a camera phone is brought into a secret work area it's to be confiscated
> and destroyed. In a Top Secret area you can't bring in any cell phone off or
> not.
>
>> On a related subject, When I went to a Verizon store in Huntsville, AL
>> recently, I saw droves of cubicle-dwellers desperate to exchange their
>> camera phones for a non-camera type. Apparently a big fat juicy Department
>> of Defense contract had been let out and one of the requirements for the
>> companies was NO EMPLOYEE CAMERA PHONES AT WORK. The next day security was
>> going to confiscate them as the badged and scanned employees went in the
>> door. That went for /everybody/ in the sprawling office building, not just
>> the people in the department doing that particular DoD work.
>>
>
>
May 15, 2005 8:45:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Backbone wrote:
<qtraindash7@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1116136997.601260.244950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> Recently, 2 rather disturbing incidents in New York City regarding
>> photography have been reported on the web. The first was by an NYCT
>> employee taking photos in Manhattan. He was taking a photo in the
>> subway when a cop "sidled" up to him and the guy explained he was an
>> NYCT employee. The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
>> your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
>> be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.


LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media
the big
bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away
for not
complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take
photos --
however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.


>> Another incident just reported was someone taking photos of buses from
>> a public street. A supervisor called the police on him and they said
>> "photography of any NYC Transit vehicle is illegal and I could take
>> your camera but I won't". First of all there is no ban on photography
>> on NYC subways. The "proposed ban" was a $25 fine, the cops seem to be
>> going well beyond even the proposed rule!


sounds like a good rule to me - so follow it and stop bitching....


>> In the 2nd incident which is similar to encounters with NJT Police, the
>> person was on a public street beyond the authority of NYCT rules.
>> New York and many places in America are becoming more like the USSR.
>> Its too bad the media fails to realize this is going on. How can we
>> stand for this? For myself, I avoid problems. I don't want to risk
>> being arrested or having my camera seized. So I stick to shooting
>> nature and isolated railroads where no one will bother me. I now live
>> in fear of the government. Its out of control. Police used to follow
>> the law, now it just seems like they can do anything they want "because
>> of 9-11".


Your going overboard - slow down a bit and take a breather


For someone using the internet name "Backbone", you sure don't seem to
have any.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
May 15, 2005 8:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <waGhe.14809$sV7.12326@fe02.lga>,
mcl <no_spam_levinemc_no_spam_@_no_spam_charter.net_no_spam> wrote:

>DOD rules require that if you work in a "SECRET" area you can bring in a
>cell phone but it must be off. No camera phones at all off or not. In fact,
>if a camera phone is brought into a secret work area it's to be confiscated
>and destroyed.

Ok, people can't manage to leave their phones somewhere in a
life-and-death situation. How can I ever expect them to stay out
of orchestra concerts and films?
May 15, 2005 8:55:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <DYKdnZj6abSOlxrfRVn-sQ@giganews.com>,
Backbone <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:

>LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the big
>bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
>complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --
>however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
>worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.

I'm trying to understand how this resolves with the Constitutional
interpretation that, you may take photographs of a public place, as long
as you have a right to be there.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 8:55:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:5aLhe.33041$fI.12046@fed1read05...
> In article <DYKdnZj6abSOlxrfRVn-sQ@giganews.com>,
> Backbone <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the
big
> >bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
> >complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --
> >however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
> >worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.
>
> I'm trying to understand how this resolves with the Constitutional
> interpretation that, you may take photographs of a public place, as long
> as you have a right to be there.

It's public, providing the city makes money off of your ass! I would prefer not
having to get a model release from every individual that I shoot and of course
having to get a friggen media release every time I shoot a public event i.e. is
a time consuming process/pain in the ass! At the same time it keeps the hordes
of people out of the required shots!!
May 15, 2005 8:58:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <hv6e81l0qk3nlkflh98tpqan3ldb7741r0@4ax.com>,
Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>On 14 May 2005 23:03:17 -0700, qtraindash7@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
>>your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
>>be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.
>
>That's abusive language? Oh you poor lambs...

Well, a threat of arrest is the same as arrest, so it is already at that
point across the line of a rights violation. It's pretty obvious that
the officer did NOT have the authority to "have him locked up", and
taking away property would necessarily involve some procedure for
forfeiture of assets. Doing any of this without due process, can and
should end the career of the police officer responsible. If the officer
does not take his job seriously enough to follow the rules laid down for
law enforcement, he needs to be in a different profession.
May 15, 2005 9:03:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <F7Khe.5006$V%.201@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
Ivor Floppy <Ivor@somewhere.uk> wrote:

>That's abusive language? If that counts as abusive language and is grounds
>for a dismissal, then it's no wonder your country is in such a mess.

What is abusive here is the direct threat of arrest without any apparent
process. Police in the US cannot simply make arrests and confiscate
property at their own discretion. This is in fact part of the most
fundamental basis of the US government.

I'm not actually convinced that the US "is a mess", by the way. It
appears to be functioning pretty well.

It will be a mess when we start to jeopardize the ideas that made the
country livable in the first place; things like freedom of assembly in
public places, due process of law, and the right to not have your
property seized at the whim of every person with any authority. All of
these are quite fundamental to the system, and they are not being
observed by the police officer in the story.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:22:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Top-postin' mcl wrote:

> DOD rules require that if you work in a "SECRET" area you can bring in a
> cell phone but it must be off. No camera phones at all off or not. In fact,
> if a camera phone is brought into a secret work area it's to be confiscated
> and destroyed. In a Top Secret area you can't bring in any cell phone off or
> not.
>
>


Thank you. That is my understanding as well.

I noticed that these latest gadgets were hard for some of the
technophiles to part with. The short notice didn't help the situation
much either.

I really look for this trend to catch on in more places, as corporations
and/or government (who can tell these days) apply the spin that one must
either be engaged in corporate spying or dangerous preversion(TM) to
have such a stealthy device.

Meanwhile, the numbers of cameras pointed at YOU are increasing daily.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:24:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TV's Ron Hunter wrote in part:


> And there is cause for someone to take a camera phone in to work, rather
> than leaving it in the car, or at home? I know that cell phones have
> taken on a life of their own, but believe it or not, life happened
> before cell phones, people went to work, drove home, and even visited
> restaurants, theaters, and churches without them! Amazing, I know, but
> true.
>
>

GET A HORSE!

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 9:32:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TV's Ron Hunter wrote in part:


> Oh? And what have they done TO YOU? I keep hearing this silliness, but
> it is meaningless unless you have a specific incident to report.
>
>

THEY aren't going to harass YOU, Ron. YOU'RE one of THEM.

--
It Came From C. L. "RanDom capiTaLiZation adds ZEST" Smith's Unclaimed
Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 10:53:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PlonK"
May 16, 2005 2:48:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Backbone wrote:
> "PlonK"
>
>


Oh the horror oh the humanity oh please God how can I go on how can I
tolerate the injustice nobody likes me everybody hates me I'm gonna eat
some worms :p 

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
May 16, 2005 4:18:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <118fgnq6upobe80@corp.supernews.com>,
Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media
>the big bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away
>for not complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take
>photos --

I'm pretty sure that having the balls to laugh at such a remark is what
separates the men from the boys among photojournalists.

You honestly believe they wait for permission?
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:18:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> You honestly believe they wait for permission?

sure, why not!. why are you so uptight about this - is really not a big deal!
May 16, 2005 4:19:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <tcGdnbTd2aSxSRrfRVn-ig@giganews.com>,
Backbone <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:

>It's public, providing the city makes money off of your ass! I would prefer not
>having to get a model release from every individual that I shoot

You don't need a release for a photograph of a person in a public place,
taken from a public place where you have a right to be. You don't have
the slighest idea what you're talking about, and I don't believe for a
second that you have any experience as a photojournalist.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:19:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:IGRhe.33249$fI.12094@fed1read05...
> In article <tcGdnbTd2aSxSRrfRVn-ig@giganews.com>,
> Backbone <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >It's public, providing the city makes money off of your ass! I would prefer
not
> >having to get a model release from every individual that I shoot
>
> You don't need a release for a photograph of a person in a public place,
> taken from a public place where you have a right to be. You don't have
> the slighest idea what you're talking about, and I don't believe for a
> second that you have any experience as a photojournalist.

This is definitely a confusing, and a much debated issue. general consensus is
that, while permission should really be obtained from any recognizable people in
the photo, if you are using the photos on a personal site or for news or perhaps
editorial purposes, you are probably going to be okay. However, if your site
happens to be popular or perhaps commercial, you may have an issue.
Fair Use!!! the agreement amongst most photojournalists is that by appearing in
a public place, the individuals have implied consent! <grin>

According to Dan Heller in his Photography Business Series, "photos shot in
public places may not require a release is because of a term called "FAIR USE"
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#fair-use

And from "Publication of Photographs: Is A Release Required?" by Lloyd L. Rich:
"Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a
photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is related
in some way to the subject matter at hand AND that the identifiable people are
not the focus of the photograph"
http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

IOW the photos taken in public areas of New York City to use without consent of
the subjects as long as they are not used for commercial purposes (a
model-release IS A Requirement).Doesn't mean it's lagal - that's your call!!

Cops or public officials, may perhaps be considered an exception to the rule.
Quite often you may use a photo of a public figure without a model release,
because that individual is in the public view, by implication, overrides some of
their privacy rights. As it says in "Creating Web Graphics for Dummies" by Wiley
Publishing, "you're a lot safer putting a photograph of yourself shaking hands
with the mayor on your Web site than of yourself shaking hands with a random
passerby."
http://dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1774,subc...

Basically, it's not a big deal if the photos were taken in a public place and
(private businesses are not considered public) you use the photos for
non-commercial purposes, Really it's your ass whether you use them or not - play
it safe, get permission in writting!

..and please take heed -> http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf <-
--
There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
Remove *flaps* to reply
May 16, 2005 4:38:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SteveB wrote:

> How are they going to know if someone is taking a photo with a mobile
> phone?
>


What's stupid is these cops are "busting" people using large, high end
cameras while a terrorist would be using like you said a cell phone or some
other concealed camera.

--

Stacey
May 16, 2005 4:40:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Stacey wrote:

>>
>>
>> Not only are the police doing anything they want, the whole government is
>> to everyone in this country. All they have to say is "It's because of the
>> terrorists" and they have free reign.
>>
> Oh? And what have they done TO YOU? I keep hearing this silliness, but
> it is meaningless unless you have a specific incident to report.
>
>

Guess you missed we're at war in Iraq over this? Or so they claim that's the
reason.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:33:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> SteveB wrote:
>
>
>>How are they going to know if someone is taking a photo with a mobile
>>phone?
>>
>
>
>
> What's stupid is these cops are "busting" people using large, high end
> cameras while a terrorist would be using like you said a cell phone or some
> other concealed camera.
>
Does that mean if I take pictures with my Minox B, I am a terrorist? Or
if I use a disposable, I am probably going to blow up something?
(certainly NOT the picture as the quality isn't adequate!).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:36:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Not only are the police doing anything they want, the whole government is
>>>to everyone in this country. All they have to say is "It's because of the
>>>terrorists" and they have free reign.
>>>
>>
>>Oh? And what have they done TO YOU? I keep hearing this silliness, but
>>it is meaningless unless you have a specific incident to report.
>>
>>
>
>
> Guess you missed we're at war in Iraq over this? Or so they claim that's the
> reason.
>
You went from police hassling people in the US to war in Iraq? How
about nuclear bombs? Seems they are as related.
I mean what specific incident leads you to believe that the police have
done ANYTHING to YOU, or anyone YOU know based on the Patriot Act.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 16, 2005 8:52:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <8didnQoCt9B0nhXfRVn-uA@giganews.com>,
Backbone <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You honestly believe they wait for permission?
>
>sure, why not!. why are you so uptight about this - is really not a big deal!

Okay, two photojournalists are witnessing an event. One is on the phone
asking for permission to shoot the scene, the other is shooting. Which
one keeps his job and which one is in the wrong line of work?
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:52:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Depends on the situation. a pre-planned event in a large city will almost always
require a media/press pass. we receive the passes weeks in advance. news worthy
events are fair game.

I don't live in NY, although, I do know that NYC Subway photography requires an
id card issued by the NYCPD!!!
--
There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
Remove *flaps* to reply

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:JGVhe.33459$fI.5823@fed1read05...
> In article <8didnQoCt9B0nhXfRVn-uA@giganews.com>,
> Backbone <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> You honestly believe they wait for permission?
> >
> >sure, why not!. why are you so uptight about this - is really not a big deal!
>
> Okay, two photojournalists are witnessing an event. One is on the phone
> asking for permission to shoot the scene, the other is shooting. Which
> one keeps his job and which one is in the wrong line of work?
>
>
May 16, 2005 9:30:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:47:17 -0700
In message <WpmdnSkGNv7mTRrfRVn-rA@giganews.com>
Posted from http://www.backboneaccess.com
"Backbone" <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:

> >snip<

<ponk>
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 9:48:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:47:17 -0700
> In message <WpmdnSkGNv7mTRrfRVn-rA@giganews.com>
> Posted from http://www.backboneaccess.com
> "Backbone" <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >snip<
>
>
> <ponk>

I hate aluminum baseball bats too.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:25:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 15 May 2005 15:40:52 -0700, qtraindash7@optonline.net wrote:

>Well it's threatening language, the cop is trying to use his authority
>as police officer to make an unconstitutional arrest and seizure.

It isn't threatening *language* at all. It's perfectly calm language
used to convey a threat.


andyt
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:25:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:58:27 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james)
wrote:

>In article <hv6e81l0qk3nlkflh98tpqan3ldb7741r0@4ax.com>,
>Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 14 May 2005 23:03:17 -0700, qtraindash7@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>>The cop said "I could have you locked up and take away
>>>your camera". The cop didn't, but that kind of abusive language should
>>>be grounds for a dismissal from the police force.
>>
>>That's abusive language? Oh you poor lambs...
>
>Well, a threat of arrest is the same as arrest,

LOL! Quite frankly, I'd rather be threatened with arrest than
arrested.


andyt
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:34:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:39:44 -0700, "Backbone"
<backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:

Snipped
>
>LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the big
>bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
>complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --
>however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
>worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.

You really need to learn the law. I suggest you read:

Legal Handbook for Photographers
The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images_

http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm


******************************************************************

"The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

_The Go-Between_
L.P. Hartley
1895 - 1972
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:34:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Replies inline!

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tp0i81pro7165hninc6o0tn8omt4anjdjf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:39:44 -0700, "Backbone"
> <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
>
> Snipped
> >
> >LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the
big

Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and many others may indeed require you to
have credentials to take photos of the general public!

> >bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
> >complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --

Perhaps not such a good statement!
> >however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
> >worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.

I was thinking in terms of if I had entered into a public event with a big ass
telephoto lenz I guarantee I will be challenged for the proper id where as if I
had a simple consumer camera.....

> You really need to learn the law. I suggest you read:

And the Debate goes on...really depends on what "exactly" that your taking a
photo of! i.e. a subway in NYC may not be such a good idea - since you need
(permission) a nycpd id issued! Whether it's right or wrong to take the photo
it's really, your call!



> Legal Handbook for Photographers
> The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images_

I have the same book - I'm not disputing any of that - perhaps you need to
re-read what the OP stated in his initial post!
--
There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
Remove *flaps* to reply
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:22:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:21:14 -0700, "Backbone"
<backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:

>Replies inline!
>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:tp0i81pro7165hninc6o0tn8omt4anjdjf@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:39:44 -0700, "Backbone"
>> <backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Snipped
>> >
>> >LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the
>big
>
>Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and many others may indeed require you to
>have credentials to take photos of the general public!
>
>> >bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
>> >complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --
>
>Perhaps not such a good statement!
>> >however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
>> >worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.
>
>I was thinking in terms of if I had entered into a public event with a big ass
>telephoto lenz I guarantee I will be challenged for the proper id where as if I
>had a simple consumer camera.....
>
>> You really need to learn the law. I suggest you read:
>
>And the Debate goes on...really depends on what "exactly" that your taking a
>photo of! i.e. a subway in NYC may not be such a good idea - since you need
>(permission) a nycpd id issued! Whether it's right or wrong to take the photo
>it's really, your call!
>
>
>
>> Legal Handbook for Photographers
>> The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images_
>
>I have the same book - I'm not disputing any of that - perhaps you need to
>re-read what the OP stated in his initial post!

And I think you need to provide some cite about actual prosecutions.

And just what credentials are required in the cities you cited. Care
to provide the links to their city codes?

Strikes me as a bunch a paranoid nonsense on several posters part
here.


******************************************************************

"The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

_The Go-Between_
L.P. Hartley
1895 - 1972
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:44:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven Wandy wrote:
> > Well, a threat of arrest is the same as arrest,
> ???? Excuse me??? The threat is the same as an actual arrest??? Where
do you
> this idea???

If you ever reasonably believe that you are not free to walk away from
a peace officer, this is the definition of being under arrest. The
officer may not threaten to arrest you before he is justified to
actually arrest you.

You are under arrest at the moment you believe you are not free to walk
away from a contact with a law enforcement officer.

I "get this idea" from the Bar Association of my state. I have a great
deal of confidence that the idea is correct.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:58:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm very interested in the details of this San Francisco photography
license you refer to. What does it cover? What does it restrict? How
is it applied for, and what agency grants it? What are the precise
consequences for not having this San Francisco Photography License that
none of my colleagues in SF seem to have ever heard of? Unless you
can provide specific information, I'll have to assume you don't know
what you're talking about at all.

I hope you aren't confusing sports and concert events with "the general
public." That's a whole different ball game, so to speak.

I'll make a point of taking pictures of crowds in Golden Gate Park,
Chinatown, or the Embarcadero next time I'm in town, and I'll eat a
whole flock of crow if I manage to get arrested for doing it "without a
license."

But I suspect you've just been making stuff up, or at least, presenting
a flawed reality assumption.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 9:54:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Well, a threat of arrest is the same as arrest,
???? Excuse me??? The threat is the same as an actual arrest??? Where do you
this idea???
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 9:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> re-elected the facsist party

???????????????????????????????????????????????????
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:49:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Backbone wrote:
> Replies inline!
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tp0i81pro7165hninc6o0tn8omt4anjdjf@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 01:39:44 -0700, "Backbone"
>><backboneaccessflaps@flapscomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>Snipped
>>
>>>LOL - most cities in the US of A (this is before 911 ) charge the media the
>
> big
>
> Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and many others may indeed require you to
> have credentials to take photos of the general public!
>
>
>>>bucks to take photos of the public - you sure as hell can be put away for not
>>>complying with a well know fact!! You need a media release to take photos --
>
>
> Perhaps not such a good statement!
>
>>>however if your a consumer with a consumer type camera you shouldn't have to
>>>worry i.e. the photos are for your own personal use.
>
>
> I was thinking in terms of if I had entered into a public event with a big ass
> telephoto lenz I guarantee I will be challenged for the proper id where as if I
> had a simple consumer camera.....
>
>
>>You really need to learn the law. I suggest you read:
>
>
> And the Debate goes on...really depends on what "exactly" that your taking a
> photo of! i.e. a subway in NYC may not be such a good idea - since you need
> (permission) a nycpd id issued! Whether it's right or wrong to take the photo
> it's really, your call!
>
>
>
>
>>Legal Handbook for Photographers
>>The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images_
>
>
> I have the same book - I'm not disputing any of that - perhaps you need to
> re-read what the OP stated in his initial post!

It is as simple as money. If you are seen with a professional camera,
they assume you are taking pictures for profit, and they want their CUT.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 17, 2005 2:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

> > <ponk>
>
> I hate aluminum baseball bats too.

Ya, it was a wooden killfile bat... no aLuminum.

Jeff
!