Here we go again? - DPChallenge Forums

12/22/2005 11:22:31 PM · #26

I think me and saintaugust can go on forever hehehe

anyways how about them lakers

Message edited by author 2005-12-22 23:24:51.

12/22/2005 11:26:32 PM · #27

Originally posted by radionin:

I think me and saintaugust can go on forever hehehe

anyways how about them lakers

perhaps.

i'm basically trying to say what you are. just being an ass.

12/22/2005 11:31:58 PM · #28

Originally posted by saintaugust:

Originally posted by radionin:
I think me and saintaugust can go on forever hehehe

anyways how about them lakers

perhaps.

i'm basically trying to say what you are. just being an ass.

AGREED hehehe

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/22/2005 11:32:44 PM · #29

Originally posted by radionin:

Originally posted by saintaugust:

Originally posted by radionin:
I think me and saintaugust can go on forever hehehe

anyways how about them lakers

perhaps.

i'm basically trying to say what you are. just being an ass.

AGREED hehehe

\

no, i meant you were being an ass.

:-)

and the game continues!

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/22/2005 11:32:45 PM · #30

Honestly, how many people here have taken a photo of someone they found attractive in public without permission? Do you think you harassed them?

12/22/2005 11:34:11 PM · #31

Originally posted by louddog:

Honestly, how many people here have taken a photo of someone they found attractive in public without permission? Do you think you harassed them?

not me actually

i've taken some candids of non-attractive people though

i would probably not be bothered by anyone for doing that, because they don't assume i'm a perv

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

12/22/2005 11:35:57 PM · #32

Originally posted by louddog:

Honestly, how many people here have taken a photo of someone they found attractive in public without permission? Do you think you harassed them?

No but in this case this man said he had done it before it seemed like it was his little hobby.

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

12/22/2005 11:41:50 PM · #33

This should answer all of the questions ....

Legalities

General
Street photography generally refers to photographs made in public places â�� not only streets, but parks, beaches, malls, political conventions and myriad other settings â�� often but not always featuring people going about their everyday lives.

Your rights as a Street Photographer
Photographing without permission:-
In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices, and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage), however there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view of a public area.

Dealing with Confrontation
In very rare cases, it may be necessary to hand over the film to someone who is truly intent on physically harming the photographer â�� though in the U.S. there is no legal grounds to force you to (even in the face of police demands to do so).

Full details and case law here

Brett

Message edited by author 2005-12-22 23:55:07.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/22/2005 11:42:28 PM · #34

Originally posted by radionin:

Originally posted by louddog:
Honestly, how many people here have taken a photo of someone they found attractive in public without permission? Do you think you harassed them?

No but in this case this man said he had done it before it seemed like it was his little hobby.

Butt is he breaking a law? If so, which one? I agree he's scum and if he was shooting my wife/mom/daughter I'd want to take out some agression on him, butt did he break a law?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/22/2005 11:45:02 PM · #35

Most of the time, inside a mall is private property and subject to limitation. However, any limitations would probably have to be readily apparent and applied to everyone equally.

12/22/2005 11:45:30 PM · #36

NOPE but in these days its pretty easy to lay charges if it is against the law or not

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/22/2005 11:46:08 PM · #37

harrassment? Taking someones picture is harrassment? They should at least find a real law he broke. He cant even fight it because in the public eye he would be convicted as soon as he let his name out. You guys are right though any guy caught looking at womens butts is a lowlife. ;)

brizmama

Nikon D200

12/22/2005 11:49:39 PM · #38

on our own

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/22/2005 11:50:30 PM · #39

Originally posted by Niten:

You guys are right though any guy caught looking at womens butts is a lowlife. ;)

Unless it's in a beer commercial ...

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/22/2005 11:53:10 PM · #40

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Niten:
You guys are right though any guy caught looking at womens butts is a lowlife. ;)

Unless it's in a beer commercial ...

you know what commercial bugs me right now?

the girls dipping burning marshmallows into baileys...

wouldn't that catch on fire or something?

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

12/22/2005 11:55:32 PM · #41

For those of you that think he was committing a crime and they were right to arrest/charge him... first I refer you back to KiwiPix's post and then I ask... how does the papparazzi get away with it? Now THEY harrass people and car accidents have happened because of them and there aren't (usually) arrests of those photographers.

12/23/2005 12:00:11 AM · #42

Originally posted by saintaugust:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Niten:
You guys are right though any guy caught looking at womens butts is a lowlife. ;)

Unless it's in a beer commercial ...

you know what commercial bugs me right now?

the girls dipping burning marshmallows into baileys...

wouldn't that catch on fire or something?

Bailyes is only 17% alchol, not enough to burn.(how does that song go? "dont ask me how I know...." )

12/23/2005 12:00:28 AM · #43

Originally posted by tfaust:

I kinda think papparazzi just gets away with it.
Correct me if I'm wroung but don't you need someones personal release before you can use there image to make profit?? I suppose they get away with it because they say its news. I guess all that guy needs is a press pass!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/23/2005 12:03:00 AM · #44

Originally posted by tfaust:

here's a thought...

why do people drive quickly away from papparazzi?

are they doing something wrong all the time?

i'd give the thumbs up and say hey, thanks for taking my pic.
ps watch my new movie!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/23/2005 12:03:30 AM · #45

Originally posted by Niten:

Bailyes is only 17% alchol, not enough to burn.(how does that song go? "dont ask me how I know...." )

In the US, alcohol content (percent or proof) is printed on the label : )

fotomann_forever

12/23/2005 12:04:20 AM · #46

Note that the women and possibly the mall could file a civil case agasint the photographer, but the DA has absolutely nothing on him. He'll be a free man.

Personally, if I were him, I'd sue for unlawful arrest.

Message edited by author 2005-12-23 00:07:42.

12/23/2005 12:04:37 AM · #47

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Niten:
Bailyes is only 17% alchol, not enough to burn.(how does that song go? "dont ask me how I know...." )

In the US, alcohol content (percent or proof) is printed on the label : )

that happens in this here canada too.

i thought baileys was a higher %.

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

12/23/2005 12:05:47 AM · #48

Originally posted by saintaugust:

Originally posted by tfaust:
For those of you that think he was committing a crime and they were right to arrest/charge him... first I refer you back to KiwiPix's post and then I ask... how does the papparazzi get away with it? Now THEY harrass people and car accidents have happened because of them and there aren't (usually) arrests of those photographers.

here's a thought...

why do people drive quickly away from papparazzi?

are they doing something wrong all the time?

i'd give the thumbs up and say hey, thanks for taking my pic.
ps watch my new movie!

The smarts are the ones that wear the same cloths every where so the pictures are always the same.

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

12/23/2005 12:12:23 AM · #49

I just edited my post below with all the legal stuff, but in a nutshell, the guiy wasn't doing anything illegal.

Neither the Police, the Mall Owners nor the women can take a case against the photogrpher. If they could the Courts would be full of paparazzi being sued by the rich and famous. Who, by definition, would have the money and resources to make the paparazzi's lives a lot more miserable than is the other way around. So if it was possible to sue, it would have already happened - it hasn't.

This guy probably wasn't even being too much of a sleaze. On our national Television New Zealand News a month ago was a story about how we are all growing fat. The pictures that went with the narrative was 2 minutes long and was shots of fat butts in the street!

Brett

Message edited by author 2005-12-23 00:15:38.