Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The right to bear camera's questions from Europe.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:46:51 AM

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

Hello Americans,

What is the law and practise for photografie.
Are there instances that you are not allowed to
take pictures ?

For example :
When the police is working (in uniform or plain clothes).
At or near railway stations.
At or near airports.
On public open spaces.
Musea, churches, none private locations.

In Europe different countries have different laws,
but there are rules that you can't take pictures of
stations (this is an old not enforced rule).
Airport /airfields. (Several countries I asume, but
spotters have been imprissoned for example in Greece).
Police / militairy actions are sometimes not allowed to
be photografed.
Sometimes the police can give instructions not to fotograph
but I do not know if they have the right to give these instructions.
Some area's can not be photographed. (Militairy sites, or even
some whole larger area's).
Of course any private area (churches musea etc.) Has it own set
of rules.

Second question :
What photographs are you allowed to publish ?
In Holland for example you can not publish a portret
without the bearers consent.
(Public figures and famous people have given their
consent implicitly because of being famous or being
'public').
Then you can not 'republish' original work of somebody
else. (This is art, but also (sometimes) pictures of buildings).

I do not expect a detailed 'legal' statement, but what is
practise in the US. What should I avoid not to get in trouble ?

Thanks for your attention,
ben brugman
August 27, 2005 12:46:52 AM

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

Ben Brugman wrote:
> Hello Americans,
>
> What is the law and practise for photografie.
> Are there instances that you are not allowed to
> take pictures ?
>
> For example :
> When the police is working (in uniform or plain clothes).
> At or near railway stations.
> At or near airports.
> On public open spaces.
> Musea, churches, none private locations.
>
> In Europe different countries have different laws,
> but there are rules that you can't take pictures of
> stations (this is an old not enforced rule).
> Airport /airfields. (Several countries I asume, but
> spotters have been imprissoned for example in Greece).
> Police / militairy actions are sometimes not allowed to
> be photografed.
> Sometimes the police can give instructions not to fotograph
> but I do not know if they have the right to give these instructions.
> Some area's can not be photographed. (Militairy sites, or even
> some whole larger area's).
> Of course any private area (churches musea etc.) Has it own set
> of rules.
>
> Second question :
> What photographs are you allowed to publish ?
> In Holland for example you can not publish a portret
> without the bearers consent.
> (Public figures and famous people have given their
> consent implicitly because of being famous or being
> 'public').
> Then you can not 'republish' original work of somebody
> else. (This is art, but also (sometimes) pictures of buildings).
>
> I do not expect a detailed 'legal' statement, but what is
> practise in the US. What should I avoid not to get in trouble ?

Hopefully one of the pro's on the newsgroup will answer you, but....
I'll give you my understanding of the rules, based on what I've gleaned
here and elsewhere; of course, I'll garantee my advice for as much as
you've paid for it.....

As a crude rule of thumb, if you can't do it at home, don't do it
abroad. The obverse does NOT apply, of course; just because you can do
something at home doesn't mean you can do it while in foreign climes.
Asking usually doesn't hurt (physically, at any rate).

After 9/11 things have gotten stricter here in the U.S.; many amateur
photogs have reported being approached by the authorities while
photographing bridges, airports, and public buildings. Some have been
told not to, others have just been checked out and left alone.

Private property here is the same as private there; you'll have to
check with the property owners to see if it's OK to take photos.
Restrictions on flashes and tripods at museums and galleries are
becoming de rigueur. Some places (I think I heard SeaWorld? Disneyland?
I don't remember) want a cut (ie. a fee, sometimes large) if you sell a
photo of their property.

Model releases are appropriate here, too. Public figures are so far
fair game, but if anybody who's not famous is recognizable in one of
your commercial photos you should get a signed model release before you
sell it. Lawsuits abound; even if you thoroughly "win" the suit you
usually loose your shirt, your sanity and your health, because of the
way the litigation laws work here.

>
> Thanks for your attention,
> ben brugman

Good Luck!
ECM
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:46:52 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:46:51 +0200, "Ben Brugman" <Ben@niethier.nl>
wrote:

>Hello Americans,
>
>What is the law and practise for photografie.
>Are there instances that you are not allowed to
>take pictures ?
>
>For example :
>When the police is working (in uniform or plain clothes).
>At or near railway stations.
>At or near airports.
>On public open spaces.
>Musea, churches, none private locations.
>
>In Europe different countries have different laws,
>but there are rules that you can't take pictures of
>stations (this is an old not enforced rule).
>Airport /airfields. (Several countries I asume, but
>spotters have been imprissoned for example in Greece).
>Police / militairy actions are sometimes not allowed to
>be photografed.
>Sometimes the police can give instructions not to fotograph
>but I do not know if they have the right to give these instructions.
>Some area's can not be photographed. (Militairy sites, or even
>some whole larger area's).
>Of course any private area (churches musea etc.) Has it own set
>of rules.
>
>Second question :
>What photographs are you allowed to publish ?
>In Holland for example you can not publish a portret
>without the bearers consent.
>(Public figures and famous people have given their
>consent implicitly because of being famous or being
>'public').
>Then you can not 'republish' original work of somebody
>else. (This is art, but also (sometimes) pictures of buildings).
>
>I do not expect a detailed 'legal' statement, but what is
>practise in the US. What should I avoid not to get in trouble ?

Here is the best place on the web to answer your questions.

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


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

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:46:52 AM

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

In the NYC area you will not be allowed to take pictures of bridges
and tunnels, and probably other major transportation hubs (all in the
interest of security). You will see signs posted in many places where
photos are not allowed. If you are caught taking pictures in forbidden
places, you'll probably be questioned and have to turn over your film
(images), but you won't be thrown in jail.
Eric
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:46:52 AM

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

Ben Brugman wrote:
> Hello Americans,
>
> What is the law and practise for photografie.
> Are there instances that you are not allowed to
> take pictures ?
>
> For example :
> When the police is working (in uniform or plain clothes).
> At or near railway stations.
> At or near airports.
> On public open spaces.
> Musea, churches, none private locations.
>
> In Europe different countries have different laws,
> but there are rules that you can't take pictures of
> stations (this is an old not enforced rule).
> Airport /airfields. (Several countries I asume, but
> spotters have been imprissoned for example in Greece).
> Police / militairy actions are sometimes not allowed to
> be photografed.
> Sometimes the police can give instructions not to fotograph
> but I do not know if they have the right to give these instructions.
> Some area's can not be photographed. (Militairy sites, or even
> some whole larger area's).
> Of course any private area (churches musea etc.) Has it own set
> of rules.
>
> Second question :
> What photographs are you allowed to publish ?
> In Holland for example you can not publish a portret
> without the bearers consent.
> (Public figures and famous people have given their
> consent implicitly because of being famous or being
> 'public').
> Then you can not 'republish' original work of somebody
> else. (This is art, but also (sometimes) pictures of buildings).
>
> I do not expect a detailed 'legal' statement, but what is
> practise in the US. What should I avoid not to get in trouble ?
>
> Thanks for your attention,
> ben brugman
>
>
>
>
There are usually signs warning about not taking pictures, if it is
prohibited. I rather suspect that if you were to stop near a nuclear
power plant, set up a tripod with telephoto lens, and spend an hour
taking pictures from various angles, and of any security installations,
someone would become curious. If you were taking pictures of a defense
installation, someone may become curious. Many other places prohibit
pictures because of the distraction of flashes going off, and have
nothing to do with security.

The copyright laws are pretty common to the US/Canada, and Europe. Some
countries don't respect internation copyright laws.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:46:53 AM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0luug11lmc9r31vh0b6qoef8287non010m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:46:51 +0200, "Ben Brugman" <Ben@niethier.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>Hello Americans,
>>
>>What is the law and practise for photografie.
>>Are there instances that you are not allowed to
>>take pictures ?
>>
>>For example :
>>When the police is working (in uniform or plain clothes).
>>At or near railway stations.
>>At or near airports.
>>On public open spaces.
>>Musea, churches, none private locations.
>>
>>In Europe different countries have different laws,
>>but there are rules that you can't take pictures of
>>stations (this is an old not enforced rule).
>>Airport /airfields. (Several countries I asume, but
>>spotters have been imprissoned for example in Greece).
>>Police / militairy actions are sometimes not allowed to
>>be photografed.
>>Sometimes the police can give instructions not to fotograph
>>but I do not know if they have the right to give these instructions.
>>Some area's can not be photographed. (Militairy sites, or even
>>some whole larger area's).
>>Of course any private area (churches musea etc.) Has it own set
>>of rules.
>>
>>Second question :
>>What photographs are you allowed to publish ?
>>In Holland for example you can not publish a portret
>>without the bearers consent.
>>(Public figures and famous people have given their
>>consent implicitly because of being famous or being
>>'public').
>>Then you can not 'republish' original work of somebody
>>else. (This is art, but also (sometimes) pictures of buildings).
>>
>>I do not expect a detailed 'legal' statement, but what is
>>practise in the US. What should I avoid not to get in trouble ?
>
> Here is the best place on the web to answer your questions.
>
> http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Thanks, John.
A great little flyer. -Just printed it out.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:06:47 AM

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

"ecm" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:1125084971.419611.290190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Brugman wrote:
>> Hello Americans,
>>
>> What is the law and practise for photografie.
>> Are there instances that you are not allowed to
>> take pictures ?
>>
>> For example :
>> When the police is working (in uniform or plain clothes).
>> At or near railway stations.
>> At or near airports.
>> On public open spaces.
>> Musea, churches, none private locations.
>>
>> In Europe different countries have different laws,
>> but there are rules that you can't take pictures of
>> stations (this is an old not enforced rule).
>> Airport /airfields. (Several countries I asume, but
>> spotters have been imprissoned for example in Greece).
>> Police / militairy actions are sometimes not allowed to
>> be photografed.
>> Sometimes the police can give instructions not to fotograph
>> but I do not know if they have the right to give these instructions.
>> Some area's can not be photographed. (Militairy sites, or even
>> some whole larger area's).
>> Of course any private area (churches musea etc.) Has it own set
>> of rules.
>>
>> Second question :
>> What photographs are you allowed to publish ?
>> In Holland for example you can not publish a portret
>> without the bearers consent.
>> (Public figures and famous people have given their
>> consent implicitly because of being famous or being
>> 'public').
>> Then you can not 'republish' original work of somebody
>> else. (This is art, but also (sometimes) pictures of buildings).
>>
>> I do not expect a detailed 'legal' statement, but what is
>> practise in the US. What should I avoid not to get in trouble ?
>
> Hopefully one of the pro's on the newsgroup will answer you, but....
> I'll give you my understanding of the rules, based on what I've gleaned
> here and elsewhere; of course, I'll garantee my advice for as much as
> you've paid for it.....
>
> As a crude rule of thumb, if you can't do it at home, don't do it
> abroad. The obverse does NOT apply, of course; just because you can do
> something at home doesn't mean you can do it while in foreign climes.
> Asking usually doesn't hurt (physically, at any rate).
>
> After 9/11 things have gotten stricter here in the U.S.; many amateur
> photogs have reported being approached by the authorities while
> photographing bridges, airports, and public buildings. Some have been
> told not to, others have just been checked out and left alone.
>
> Private property here is the same as private there; you'll have to
> check with the property owners to see if it's OK to take photos.
> Restrictions on flashes and tripods at museums and galleries are
> becoming de rigueur. Some places (I think I heard SeaWorld? Disneyland?
> I don't remember) want a cut (ie. a fee, sometimes large) if you sell a
> photo of their property.
>
> Model releases are appropriate here, too. Public figures are so far
> fair game, but if anybody who's not famous is recognizable in one of
> your commercial photos you should get a signed model release before you
> sell it. Lawsuits abound; even if you thoroughly "win" the suit you
> usually loose your shirt, your sanity and your health, because of the
> way the litigation laws work here.
>
>>
>> Thanks for your attention,
>> ben brugman
>
> Good Luck!
> ECM
>




critcher said
so before long in america all photos will have to be landscapes without any
recognizable people in them.
this is silly and is a violation of peoples rights to do what they wish
without bringing harm to someone.
A photo of times square would mean getting a release form off 4 or 5 hundred
people.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:03:02 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:08:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

snipped
>> Here is the best place on the web to answer your questions.
>>
>> http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
>
>Thanks, John.
>A great little flyer. -Just printed it out.
>

Read his book it's an education on the legal issues of photography
today.


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

"There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
has existed throughout history by means of photography?
The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
Yet, that very idea has motivated me.

James Nachtwey
War Photographer
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:03:03 AM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cbbvg1t6mkb593fna5bjb25q777ljt46mk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:08:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> snipped
>>> Here is the best place on the web to answer your questions.
>>>
>>> http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
>>
>>Thanks, John.
>>A great little flyer. -Just printed it out.
>>
>
> Read his book it's an education on the legal issues of photography
> today.

It's already in my "cart" at Amazon.
**Only question is... Have there been substantial changes to laws since
9/11?
This book would have likely been in its final form before that date, and the
chages that may have followed. Perhaps its not significant change, but I'd
like to know before ordering it.

-Mark

>
>
> **************************************************************
>
> "There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
> at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
> that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
> increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
> have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
> Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
> has existed throughout history by means of photography?
> The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
> Yet, that very idea has motivated me.
>
> James Nachtwey
> War Photographer
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:10:38 AM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:46:51 +0200, "Ben Brugman" <Ben@niethier.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>Hello Americans,
>>
>>What is the law and practise for photografie.
>>Are there instances that you are not allowed to
>>take pictures ?
>>
>>For example :
>>When the police is working (in uniform or plain clothes).
>>At or near railway stations.
>>At or near airports.
>>On public open spaces.
>>Musea, churches, none private locations.
>>
>>In Europe different countries have different laws,
>>but there are rules that you can't take pictures of
>>stations (this is an old not enforced rule).
>>Airport /airfields. (Several countries I asume, but
>>spotters have been imprissoned for example in Greece).
>>Police / militairy actions are sometimes not allowed to
>>be photografed.
>>Sometimes the police can give instructions not to fotograph
>>but I do not know if they have the right to give these instructions.
>>Some area's can not be photographed. (Militairy sites, or even
>>some whole larger area's).
>>Of course any private area (churches musea etc.) Has it own set
>>of rules.
>>
>>Second question :
>>What photographs are you allowed to publish ?
>>In Holland for example you can not publish a portret
>>without the bearers consent.
>>(Public figures and famous people have given their
>>consent implicitly because of being famous or being
>>'public').
>>Then you can not 'republish' original work of somebody
>>else. (This is art, but also (sometimes) pictures of buildings).
>>
>>I do not expect a detailed 'legal' statement, but what is
>>practise in the US. What should I avoid not to get in trouble ?
>
> Here is the best place on the web to answer your questions.
>
> http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm


It's not bad, but I would want to add that I did not see a section on
what you can do with some of those photographs. For the most part that
question comes up as a matter of publication public display or sale.
Recognizable images of people and on occasion copyrighted images (I
understand at least one tree has had its image copyrighted.) are generally
restricted and you need permission from the owner for publication. A news
worthy image published in the media may be exempt.

I would be careful about photographing children. I would suggest that
if anyone objects, just say thanks and move on.


>
>
> ******************************************************
>
> "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
> my testimony. The events I have recorded should
> not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:25:15 AM

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

> As a crude rule of thumb, if you can't do it at home, don't do it
> abroad. The obverse does NOT apply, of course; just because you can do
> something at home doesn't mean you can do it while in foreign climes.
> Asking usually doesn't hurt (physically, at any rate).
>
> After 9/11 things have gotten stricter here in the U.S.; many amateur
> photogs have reported being approached by the authorities while
> photographing bridges, airports, and public buildings. Some have been
> told not to, others have just been checked out and left alone.
>
> Private property here is the same as private there; you'll have to
> check with the property owners to see if it's OK to take photos.
> Restrictions on flashes and tripods at museums and galleries are
> becoming de rigueur. Some places (I think I heard SeaWorld? Disneyland?
> I don't remember) want a cut (ie. a fee, sometimes large) if you sell a
> photo of their property.
>
> Model releases are appropriate here, too. Public figures are so far
> fair game, but if anybody who's not famous is recognizable in one of
> your commercial photos you should get a signed model release before you
> sell it. Lawsuits abound; even if you thoroughly "win" the suit you
> usually loose your shirt, your sanity and your health, because of the
> way the litigation laws work here.


Much depends on the photographer's purpose. If you are shooting commercially
you need everybody's permission and getting it in writing is safer. The
exception is background people...if you ask them to do anything you need
their permission but if they do what you ask that is de facto
permission....but getting it in writing is safer.

When shooting as an amateur you can shoot anything you like but property
owners can ask you to step off their property. Anything you can shoot from a
public place is fair. While you are free to shoot you may go broke defending
your right in court. Cops and other authority figures and public figures are
also fair game but the might harass a photog. It's important to know your
rights. All this includes artist.

The most freedom is given to members of the press. This is because of one of
the earliest amendments to our constitution. Our highest court has said that
if someone collects information (that includes photographs) for
dissemination to the public they are the press. This includes web sites so
its a good idea to have one. Some authorities want some sort of press
credentials but even that violates the letter of the law. It's easy enough
though to make some for yourself using your computer. It's just easier to
have something prepared in advance. The rules for private property still
apply...you can be arrested for trespassing but not for the photography.
August 27, 2005 11:11:36 AM

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

On 26 Aug 2005 17:47:19 -0700, "bluezfolk" <ericreh@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In the NYC area you will not be allowed to take pictures of bridges
> and tunnels, and probably other major transportation hubs (all in the
> interest of security). You will see signs posted in many places where
> photos are not allowed. If you are caught taking pictures in forbidden
> places, you'll probably be questioned and have to turn over your film
> (images), but you won't be thrown in jail.

In Britain they just shoot you.
August 27, 2005 12:44:38 PM

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

critcher wrote:
SNIP
> > Model releases are appropriate here, too. Public figures are so far
> > fair game, but if anybody who's not famous is recognizable in one of
> > your commercial photos you should get a signed model release before you
> > sell it. Lawsuits abound; even if you thoroughly "win" the suit you
> > usually loose your shirt, your sanity and your health, because of the
> > way the litigation laws work here.
> >
SNIP
> > Good Luck!
> > ECM
> >
>
>
> critcher said
> so before long in america all photos will have to be landscapes without any
> recognizable people in them.
> this is silly and is a violation of peoples rights to do what they wish
> without bringing harm to someone.
> A photo of times square would mean getting a release form off 4 or 5 hundred
> people.

It's true, it's a dilemma.

On the one hand, (as someone pointed out) the rights of the news media
are entrenched in the constitution here in the U.S.; they can even
legally use your photo off your website without your permission if they
think it's "newsworthy". O'course, you're free to sue them for a
fee..... As an eg, the recent kerfuffle about the Iraqi prisoner pics,
taken off a secured private website by a reporter and published. The
question is not really whether the reporter had a right to crack the
website and "steal" the photos, but rather whether the (rather
trusting) individual who put them on the web, should maybe not have put
them there.

On the other hand, many public officials are right now trying to
restrict your right to see what you want, and take a photo of it for
profit or otherwise. Try taking a few pics of airplanes taking off at
the local airport, for instance. You'll be chatting with the airport
authorities before you know it. On the DP Review forums a few months
ago, someone described a visit from the authorities when he was taking
pics of the Detroit-Windsor bridge.

As for Times Square, as I understand it as long as your photograph
doesn't single out a smaller group or an individual you're OK.
Anonymity comes in crowds, photographed from a distance. You might want
to use a slightly longer exposure to blur the faces a little, though.
Really, the issue with Times Square photos is "for profit" - if you
don't sell or profit somehow from the image, no model release is
necessary, if I understand the rules correctly....

Cheers!
ECM
August 27, 2005 12:49:33 PM

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:
SNIP
> I would be careful about photographing children. I would suggest that
> if anyone objects, just say thanks and move on.
>
>
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit

Too true. A recent issue that's come up in several countries (eg, Great
Britain) is photographing children that aren't your own. They're minors
so they can't give permission, implicit or otherwise. The real issue
is, however, sexual predation by pedophiles - it's (quite rightly) got
a lot of parents worried. Be extra careful of this, this WILL cause you
harm - a couple of Mexican police officers were burned alive by a lynch
mob last November when they were caught taking photographs of some kids
at a school:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4038173.stm

ECM
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:09:42 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:19:55 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:cbbvg1t6mkb593fna5bjb25q777ljt46mk@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:08:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>> snipped
>>>> Here is the best place on the web to answer your questions.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
>>>
>>>Thanks, John.
>>>A great little flyer. -Just printed it out.
>>>
>>
>> Read his book it's an education on the legal issues of photography
>> today.
>
>It's already in my "cart" at Amazon.
>**Only question is... Have there been substantial changes to laws since
>9/11?
>This book would have likely been in its final form before that date, and the
>chages that may have followed. Perhaps its not significant change, but I'd
>like to know before ordering it.

No basic changes but there have been attempts at the local level.
Remember NYC's not photos in subways but no book can keep up with the
insanity of local law makers.

It's a good solid foundation.


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

"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."

Samuel Johnson
"Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:10:18 PM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:10:38 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

Snipped
> It's not bad, but I would want to add that I did not see a section on
>what you can do with some of those photographs. For the most part that
>question comes up as a matter of publication public display or sale.
>Recognizable images of people and on occasion copyrighted images (I
>understand at least one tree has had its image copyrighted.) are generally
>restricted and you need permission from the owner for publication. A news
>worthy image published in the media may be exempt.
>
> I would be careful about photographing children. I would suggest that
>if anyone objects, just say thanks and move on.

See the book....
****************************************************

"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."

Samuel Johnson
"Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 10:19:46 PM

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

critcher wrote:
> "ecm" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote in message
> news:1125157773.626900.310270@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Joseph Meehan wrote:
> > SNIP
> >> I would be careful about photographing children. I would suggest
> >> that
> >> if anyone objects, just say thanks and move on.
> >>
> >>
> >> Joseph Meehan
> >>
> >> Dia duit
> >
> > Too true. A recent issue that's come up in several countries (eg, Great
> > Britain) is photographing children that aren't your own. They're minors
> > so they can't give permission, implicit or otherwise. The real issue
> > is, however, sexual predation by pedophiles - it's (quite rightly) got
> > a lot of parents worried. Be extra careful of this, this WILL cause you
> > harm - a couple of Mexican police officers were burned alive by a lynch
> > mob last November when they were caught taking photographs of some kids
> > at a school:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4038173.stm
> >
> > ECM
> >
>
> imagine american tourists in london not being allowed to photograph the
> tower bridge, or buckingham palace and all the other touristy places, this
> is a plus to terrorism and unless all you people out there decide to say I
> WILL DO WHAT I WANT AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE , THEN YOU
> HAVE LOST THE PROPAGANDA WAR.
> with regard to sexual predation, for gods sake this is terrifying,
> frightened to smile at a child, frightened to talk to a child, and I mean
> babies not just plus 5'ves. Newspapers have got a lot to answer for.

I didn't know newspapers were being used to assault children! Amazing.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:56:13 AM

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

"ecm" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:1125157773.626900.310270@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
> SNIP
>> I would be careful about photographing children. I would suggest
>> that
>> if anyone objects, just say thanks and move on.
>>
>>
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> Dia duit
>
> Too true. A recent issue that's come up in several countries (eg, Great
> Britain) is photographing children that aren't your own. They're minors
> so they can't give permission, implicit or otherwise. The real issue
> is, however, sexual predation by pedophiles - it's (quite rightly) got
> a lot of parents worried. Be extra careful of this, this WILL cause you
> harm - a couple of Mexican police officers were burned alive by a lynch
> mob last November when they were caught taking photographs of some kids
> at a school:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4038173.stm
>
> ECM
>

imagine american tourists in london not being allowed to photograph the
tower bridge, or buckingham palace and all the other touristy places, this
is a plus to terrorism and unless all you people out there decide to say I
WILL DO WHAT I WANT AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE , THEN YOU
HAVE LOST THE PROPAGANDA WAR.
with regard to sexual predation, for gods sake this is terrifying,
frightened to smile at a child, frightened to talk to a child, and I mean
babies not just plus 5'ves. Newspapers have got a lot to answer for.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:14:35 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:06:44 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>The copyright laws are pretty common to the US/Canada, and Europe. Some
>countries don't respect internation copyright laws.

One notable exception in copyright law involves photography of
copyrighted architectural works, such as buildings. U.S. law
holds such photographs as non-infringing works, whereas the
Berne convention does not.

Note also that while you may have a right to take a picture,
other laws may limit what you can and can not do with that picture.
Some of those laws, such as copyright law, are federal laws and
are the same everywhere in the United States. Others, such as
privacy laws, vary from state to state.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 5:09:04 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:06:47 +0100, "critcher"
<dennisgange@gothere.uk.com> wrote:

>
> critcher said
> so before long in america all photos will have to be landscapes without any
>recognizable people in them.
>this is silly and is a violation of peoples rights to do what they wish
>without bringing harm to someone.
>A photo of times square would mean getting a release form off 4 or 5 hundred
>people.
>
That's an exageration; there's no indication it's going that way.
While there are indeed restrictions on what you do *commercially*,
non-commercial photography (as a tourist, for example) is very
non-restricted in the US.
There are some restrictions here and there (New York still has a ban
on photos on the subways, IIRC), but for the most part, on public
property, shoot away, so to speak.
As for people shooting, if it's not commercial, there's nothing saying
you can't do it in public; no release needed.
Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
push it?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 5:13:45 AM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:10:38 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Here is the best place on the web to answer your questions.
>>
>> http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
>
>
> It's not bad, but I would want to add that I did not see a section on
>what you can do with some of those photographs. For the most part that
>question comes up as a matter of publication public display or sale.
>Recognizable images of people and on occasion copyrighted images (I
>understand at least one tree has had its image copyrighted.) are generally
>restricted and you need permission from the owner for publication. A news
>worthy image published in the media may be exempt.

"Publication" can mean different things.
I can publish photos taken of people in public on my web site at my
convenience, because I make no money from them at all.
Such photos published in the Enquirer can get me and the Enquirer in a
lot of trouble.
>
> I would be careful about photographing children. I would suggest that
>if anyone objects, just say thanks and move on.

Yes; common courtesy goes a long way.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
August 28, 2005 10:03:39 AM

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

Bill Funk wrote:

> Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
> push it?
>


Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:18:54 PM

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>> push it?
>>
>
>
>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.

While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
battles.
We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:30:34 PM

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

Michael Benveniste <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote:

: Note also that while you may have a right to take a picture,
: other laws may limit what you can and can not do with that picture.
: Some of those laws, such as copyright law, are federal laws and
: are the same everywhere in the United States. Others, such as
: privacy laws, vary from state to state.

Unless you are a paparazzi and then you can commit reckless driving,
trespass, etc and get away with it. :(  Maybe that can be your defence when
some authority objects to you taking photos that include people, you are a
paparazi and you thought there was a celebrity in the crowd. (chuckle)

(Note for the humor impaired, this is a HUMOROUS comment not ment to be
serious in any way.)

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
August 28, 2005 7:26:29 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>>>push it?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.
>
>
> While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
> battles.
> We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
> common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
> that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
> photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?
>


Of course I would.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 9:09:08 PM

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:09:04 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> There are some restrictions here and there (New York still has a ban
> on photos on the subways, IIRC), but for the most part, on public
> property, shoot away, so to speak.

What you recall no longer applies. The ban was removed several
months ago.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:20:22 PM

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:26:29 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>>>>push it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>>>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.
>>
>>
>> While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
>> battles.
>> We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
>> common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
>> that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
>> photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?
>>
>
>
>Of course I would.

Well, that's what I'm talking about.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:21:09 PM

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:09:08 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:09:04 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> There are some restrictions here and there (New York still has a ban
>> on photos on the subways, IIRC), but for the most part, on public
>> property, shoot away, so to speak.
>
> What you recall no longer applies. The ban was removed several
>months ago.

Good!
Not that it affects me, personally. :-)

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
August 29, 2005 11:15:46 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:26:29 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>>>>>push it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>>>>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.
>>>
>>>
>>>While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
>>>battles.
>>>We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
>>>common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
>>>that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
>>>photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Of course I would.
>
>
> Well, that's what I'm talking about.
>


Well, then help me understand how anyone's opinion of anyone else's
perceived rudeness has anything to do with anyone's consitutional
rights. Your prior posts indicate there's some relevance between the
two, yet I don't get it.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 11:54:19 PM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:15:46 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:26:29 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>>>>>>push it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>>>>>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
>>>>battles.
>>>>We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
>>>>common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
>>>>that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
>>>>photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course I would.
>>
>>
>> Well, that's what I'm talking about.
>>
>
>
>Well, then help me understand how anyone's opinion of anyone else's
>perceived rudeness has anything to do with anyone's consitutional
>rights. Your prior posts indicate there's some relevance between the
>two, yet I don't get it.


What I am saying is that it isn't necessary to excersize your right o
keep it intact. That should be obvious.
Or, to put it another way, it is not necessary to excersize a
constitutional right every time the opportunity comes up in order to
be able to excersize it at another time.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:19:37 AM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:20:22 -0700, Bill Funk
<BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:26:29 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>>>>>push it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>>>>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.
>>>
>>>
>>> While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
>>> battles.
>>> We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
>>> common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
>>> that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
>>> photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Of course I would.
>
>Well, that's what I'm talking about.

It's not necessarily what he meant. I also would consider it
rude for someone to continue after being asked to stop, but I'm also
sensible enough to know I have no right to threaten him or batter him
to enforce my will.

About all I'm entitled to do is leave the scene or to exercise
my freedom of speech by holding my flipped bird (or other offensive
gesture) in front of my face or whatever part of my anatomy was of
greatest apparent interest to him.
August 30, 2005 2:19:38 AM

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

kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:20:22 -0700, Bill Funk
> <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:26:29 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>>>>>>push it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>>>>>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
>>>>battles.
>>>>We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
>>>>common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
>>>>that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
>>>>photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course I would.
>>
>>Well, that's what I'm talking about.
>
>
> It's not necessarily what he meant. I also would consider it
> rude for someone to continue after being asked to stop, but I'm also
> sensible enough to know I have no right to threaten him or batter him
> to enforce my will.
>
> About all I'm entitled to do is leave the scene or to exercise
> my freedom of speech by holding my flipped bird (or other offensive
> gesture) in front of my face or whatever part of my anatomy was of
> greatest apparent interest to him.


This happens occasionally, and ordinarily I don't really care enough to
glance twice. It's only a well-understood gesture intended to convey
their opinion that they're unhappy about something which I may or may
not care much about. Not that I don't appreciate the clarity, but it
depends on whether I "wave" back - thereby exercising another of my
constitutional rights. When I do, it usually results in a rather
ostentatious display of more gesturing, chest thumping, really bad name
calling, testosterone slinging, and the worst of all - writing bogus
checks. I ordinarily don't care too much about any of this either,
unless my name is in the 'pay to the order of' section - then I lose my
grin.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
August 30, 2005 2:56:23 AM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:15:46 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:26:29 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:03:39 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, common courtesy should be used. If someone objects, why
>>>>>>>push it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because I care more about my constitutional rights than I do of their
>>>>>>opinion? Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to be a question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>While that is certainly your right, I find it wise to choose my
>>>>>battles.
>>>>>We aren't talking about the right to take photographs here, only about
>>>>>common courtesy. If, for example, you didn't want your picture, or
>>>>>that of your child, taken, wouldn't you consider it rude if a
>>>>>photographer continued after you'd asked him to stop?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course I would.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, that's what I'm talking about.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well, then help me understand how anyone's opinion of anyone else's
>>perceived rudeness has anything to do with anyone's consitutional
>>rights. Your prior posts indicate there's some relevance between the
>>two, yet I don't get it.
>
>
>
> What I am saying is that it isn't necessary to excersize your right o
> keep it intact. That should be obvious.
> Or, to put it another way, it is not necessary to excersize a
> constitutional right every time the opportunity comes up in order to
> be able to excersize it at another time.
>


Not necessary? With all due and obvious respect, Bill, I absolutely and
most emphatically disagree. In fact, I consider the opportunity to
exercise a constitutional right, and allowing it to pass unheeded as an
non-act so completely bereft of patriotic commitment as to be considered
criminally negligent suicide. Additionally, each and every opportunity
to exercise my constitutional rights is the same opportunity to place
the Wreath of Devotion, Honor and Respect at the head of every grave
site containing the remains of an American soldier. Sir, I have no
intention of telling you how to run your life, but I will certainly tell
you how I intend to run my life. It would be my highest suspicion that
your perilous route along the Road of Convenience, Sir, is fraught with
loss and misfortune. Continue at your own risk and may your companions
be few.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
!