| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2003 07:26:53 PM · #1 |
As a lot of you folks know, there is an online photo journalism project going on called America 24/7 or something similar to that.
Well here in good old Springfield, IL, a local man, who is a free lance photographer for a local newspaper was out at a park last weekend taking shots of kids playing on the equipment. After he took the shots of the kids, he took a release form that I am assuming was downloaded from the America 24/7 site to the parents to get consent for the photos of their kids.
Several parents did sign the release however, there was one lady who did not like the idea of what he was doing or having her child photographed. She declined to sign the release, left the park and after stewing about it contacted the park police who showed up at the park. The woman demanded him to turn over his disk with the photos on it, not only of her child but of other shots as well, and he refused. The park police sided with the lady and after much arguing and talking back & forth, the police issued him a citation for disturning the peace based on this woman's complaint and confiscated his disk.
Now the paper that he works for has hiredan attorney for him, claiming violation of his 1st & 4th amendment rights, arguing that her child being in a public place has no expectation of privacy at the park and so on.
A new twist on this also is that the park district is refusing to turn over a copy of the report to the radio news outlet following this story by saying they are still investigating as to whether or not additional charges could or should be filed.
Another source has been voicing the fact that the park may also be dropping all charges so as not to give the parks a bad image in all this.
A court date is set for sometime in June or July.
Be careful out there folks...
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 07:48:44 PM · #2 |
Welcome to the land of the free.
Even in (should be especially in) Republican America, the police and the lady are wrong here...he can possibly be enjoined from commercial use of the photos, but not from possession or his own, private use.
In fact, by pursuing the case, and creating a news story about it, the woman in question has probably now elevated herself and child to the category of public figures, and can have no further expectation of privacy at all, and he can probably publish the photos in a news/journalistic context.
And if she didn't didn't even notice the guy taking the pictures, it is likely he could make the claim that the kids are not individually identifiable at all, and the release was a courtesy, not a legal requirement.
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 19:49:34. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 08:00:13 PM · #3 |
| Gawd, that would have pissed me off bigtime. There's no way I would have given them my CF card. What a bunch of crap that is... I'd let them take me to jail and sue the park service for false arrest. The women was just an idiot. If the guy was going to use the pics for some illegal purposse, why would he ask her to sign a release form? What a moron she is. All she had to do is say NO don't use the pics commercially. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 08:35:24 PM · #4 |
The funny thing in all this is that the girl was in the playground area by herself, the mom was at another part of the park watching her son's baseball game. The photographer gave the consent form to the little girl to give to the parents.
This is a relatively small park also, so it wasn't as if he was skulking around hiding behind trees taking shots with no one noticing him.
It seems to me that an easy simple solution to all of this would have been if she said no, he could have deleted the daughter's photo of the media and been done with it.
There is definitely the hint of a lwsuit in the air, the attorney retained by the paper this guy works for is a big time lawyer here.
I see both sides of the issue being both a parent and an amatuer photographer. However this has been blown up so incredibly by this woman's behavior it is unreal.
She was on the radio on a talk show today and would only let them refer to her as "Mom", as she doesn't want to be identified now.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 08:39:32 PM · #5 |
I wonder what her basis was for not wanting her child photographed. Perhaps it was fear, with all of the child kidnappings and child porn making the news these days.
oops a bit too slow :).
The fear can be pretty deep seeded, driving a mom to insane proportions.
Obviously she is an emotional woman who overdid it, hopefully she will learn from this. Unfortunatly at the photographers expense.
Message edited by author 2003-05-21 21:01:04. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 08:59:23 PM · #6 |
| Initial fear is one thing. After the situation is explained to you, well that's just stupidity. Too bad you can't elect for Darwin Awards :/ |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 09:38:28 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Paige:
I wonder what her basis was for not wanting her child photographed. Perhaps it was fear, with all of the child kidnappings and child porn making the news these days.
oops a bit too slow :).
The fear can be pretty deep seeded, driving a mom to insane proportions.
Obviously she is an emotional woman who overdid it, hopefully she will learn from this. Unfortunatly at the photographers expense. |
I had very little problem with photographs other than I wanted to go to my little boy,s school and photograph his teacher and a few of the students in his class. This is a school that has a release signed at the beginning of the school year for each student and they know exactly who they can and can not have photographed. The principal would have been able to sign the release and included a copy of the school policy and made my life easy.
But after reading the release and asking a few question the school decided not to let me do this cause of the fact that the name of the school the city and the students' names would appear in the book and could make the kids vulnerable to kidnappings and such. I hadn't thought of it that way till the assistant principal sat down and explained why they decided not to let me do this...
Pretty good reasoning behind it and it did make me ask first before photographing anyone...but I do agree this woman took it to far heck she could have insisted that he just delete all the photos that her child was in. |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 09:51:10 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
05/21/2003 10:31:37 PM · #9 |
From listening to her on the radio today, I am assuming that her biggest fear or concern was porn.
She had made references to there also being photos on his camera of guys that were either playing frisbee or laying in the grass with no shirts on.
She also said that her daughter was in shorts & a tank top and was photographed hanging upside down, i believe, from the monkey bars.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2003 11:12:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by rickhd13:
From listening to her on the radio today, I am assuming that her biggest fear or concern was porn.
She had made references to there also being photos on his camera of guys that were either playing frisbee or laying in the grass with no shirts on.
She also said that her daughter was in shorts & a tank top and was photographed hanging upside down, i believe, from the monkey bars. |
Then she should have been supervising her daughter and discouraging such "provocative" behavior.
I think the whole thing is motivated by the mom's guilt at the realization that, HAD this guy been a criminal instead of a fine, considerate citizen, her daughter would quite possibly be gone by now.
If anything, SHE is the one who should be subject to arrest for child endangerment...what if the guy had asked her "where's your mom?" and, told she wasn't around, hailed a cop himself? |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 12:17:38 AM · #11 |
I think the Mom had a right not to sign the release. However, that should have ended the story right there. Unless: He went ahead and published the photo. I do not believe that she had a right to view any of the photos on the disk. (After all if she felt that she has the right to protect her child from the view of others, does not that same right apply to the other parents of other children in those pictures.) And, the photos are the property of the photographer. Even with a release she has the right that the photos not be used in a disparaging or demeaning manner. So I think she was effectively shielded from pornographic uses of the pictures.
Needless to say, if someone comes to you with a release for the pictures they took, especially in a public place, most likely the pictures are harmless and the person legit. Not too many kiddie porn photogs run around getting releases from the parents, would be my guess.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 12:24:08 AM · #12 |
Well said General. That's probably the case like you said. And yes, parents need to be more pro-active about stuff like this.
Considering all the kid pictures he has, it probably wouldn't hurt to check with his news company to see if he really had some kind of assignment for this. If not, then he may or may not be a freak. I'd think it a little odd if he didn't have an assignment for this, but he's doing nothing illegal and shouldn't be harrased. Maybe his child died in an accident and he's doing this to fill that void, etc., you never know.
Message edited by author 2003-05-22 00:25:54. |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 01:54:45 AM · #13 |
One of my friends is not too happy about signing the release, because the release specifies the images could be used by an advertising agency.
I am beginning to think that 24/7 is just a ploy to get stock images. The company you're releasing your rights to for 2 years (read the agreement, u can't publish it or show it even on dpc of your images for 2 years) is called 24/7 Media, LLC. I searched on it in the web, there is a company called 24/7 Real Media, Inc. i don't know if there are any connections,but upon further searching, it turns out this company is being DELISTED from Nasdaq (i.e. it's BROKE).... either way, 24/7 Media, LLC can use the images for whatever they want supposedly, or any of the affiliates (including Kodak, etc.)
Let's hope they don't have a condom company in their list of affiliates :) next thing you know, your neighbor appears on the condom commercial and ends up suing YOU for misrepresentation.
They really don't need model releases for the book. Seriously, the model releases are for PROFIT only. If the book is editorial/journalistic contents, NO MODEL RELEASE is required (the law allows for the media to publish any photo shot in public places but NOT for commercials or advertising. Those you need model release becauset he model is representing the company/products). So I am actually quite suspicious as to the true intent of the America 24/7 thing. After all, they are expecting over 1 million images, and only 10,000 will be published for the book, so where do the other 990,000 go? Into the stock advertising agency's pool!!!
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 02:01:09 AM · #14 |
You can publish ANY photos in news or journalistic content, ANY photo shot in public places without regards to privacy, as in public there is no expectation of privacy.
You can't, however, take the same photo and SELL products with it. That's why you can't take a photo of Sandra Bullock in public and use it to promote your product without her model release, but you can take the same photo and SELL it to a "news" agency such as uh, National Enquirer :-) The law allows leeway for media on this due to the first amendment.
The women has no legal ground on this issue. The photos can be published as long as it is to a MEDIA/JOURNAL WITHOUT her consent. The photos can be KEPT by the photographer but can't be SOLD to other venues that will use it commercially other tahn journalistic medium. Thus, 24/7 can't use it for ADVERTISING, but it can be in the book because it is presented as a news/journalistic publication (i.e. you can't use it to PROMOTE the sale of the book, but it can be within the book.... silly isn't it?)
Best bet? Ask before you shoot.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Welcome to the land of the free.
Even in (should be especially in) Republican America, the police and the lady are wrong here...he can possibly be enjoined from commercial use of the photos, but not from possession or his own, private use.
In fact, by pursuing the case, and creating a news story about it, the woman in question has probably now elevated herself and child to the category of public figures, and can have no further expectation of privacy at all, and he can probably publish the photos in a news/journalistic context.
And if she didn't didn't even notice the guy taking the pictures, it is likely he could make the claim that the kids are not individually identifiable at all, and the release was a courtesy, not a legal requirement. |
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 03:08:06 AM · #15 |
just like my gun, they can have my camera or my disk in this case, when they pry it from my cold dead fingers! geez this whole story is ridiculous! the world is full freaking idiots!
Message edited by author 2003-05-22 03:08:31. |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 03:23:00 AM · #16 |
What exactly is a 'public place'? If a photographer stands on the street(public) and makes a picture of a person who is in his garden or stands in front of the window of his house or is in his car or on his boat(all private) is that ok or does the model here has a right to privacy and you can't take a picture without his consent? I believe the way lawsuits have gone, all those situations are considered public.
In the glass challenge mbardeen submitted a voyeuristic picture. It was all staged. Suppose it wasn't and he had caught this couple (married but not to one another), submitted the pic to dpchallenge. Could both the submitter and dpc be in legal trouble because the couple was entitled to privacy? Or could you say he took it from the street and if privacy was important to the couple they should have closed the drapes. I think that situation is considered public as well. And the bread and butter for some PIs :) |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 05:05:10 AM · #17 |
Journey,
As the picture was shot, I doubt either me or DPC would get in legal trouble. The shapes are indistinct enough to be just about anyone, thus I doubt the subjects would pick up on the fact it was them behind the glass. However, if I was taking this shot without consent, and I got caught while taking it I'm not as sure of the legality.
If I happened to be photographing a building, and happened to catch a couple fighting in a window, would it still be of questionable legality?
I don't know the answers.. I do know that for my photo, a model release form is not needed because the subjects are rendered in a unrecognizable way.
I'll stop rambling now...
-Matt
Message edited by author 2003-05-22 05:05:39. |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 08:09:01 AM · #18 |
from setz's link:
"You're not allowed to photograph the personal activities of private citizens (for instance, through a bathroom window) whether you're on public property or not; you're not allowed to photograph "public" citizens (i.e., celebrities) if they are someplace where they have "an expectation of privacy," like when they're behind a high garden wall or lounging on a yacht anchored off the island of Skorpios; certain landforms and flora that are trademarked are protected against shutterbugs (for instance, the lone cypress tree at Cypress Point golf course)"
.. so Journey (and mbardeen), even accidental, these people have the right to privacy, if they expected it to be private, and a model release would be necessary..
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 09:43:15 AM · #19 |
There were a few stories over here recently about schools having to get (effectively) releases from pupils' parents for class shots - that was when the paedophilia paranoia was at its height.
There really are an awful lot of fabulously stupid people in the world.
Ed
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 10:00:56 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by e301:
There were a few stories over here recently about schools having to get (effectively) releases from pupils' parents for class shots - that was when the paedophilia paranoia was at its height.
There really are an awful lot of fabulously stupid people in the world.
Ed |
The problem isn't people being fabulously stupid...the problem is with the 2% of the population that are total perverts and prey on kids. Too many kids have become victims because of too much information, and the perverts of the world find the victims frequently through newspaper articles and internet searches.
People need to stop living in fear of the perverts and actually do something about them and stop fearing that the kids are going to be victims. It would be a lot nicer world if people who were victims would come out and help put the perverts away then the fears would end. |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 10:06:47 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Too many kids have become victims because of too much information, and the perverts of the world find the victims frequently through newspaper articles and internet searches.
|
I agree with this 100%...we live in a society that tells us not to put our children's names on the back of their shirts and to teach our kids to avoid stranges and then when summer breaks for example, the newspapers put the kids pix on the front page, with their names and the neighborhood they are playing in.
This has always struck me as extremely odd.
Message edited by author 2003-05-22 10:07:18.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 10:34:40 AM · #22 |
Not to mention the fear on terrorism. Try taking a night photo of Golden Gate bridge and see what happens.... the FBI will be questioning you shortly.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2003 11:22:12 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Not to mention the fear on terrorism. Try taking a night photo of Golden Gate bridge and see what happens.... the FBI will be questioning you shortly. |
I took some photos of the GGB for the bridge challenge in the early morning, tripod and all. Had a couple of camouflaged milatary men with rather large guns approach me, they watched me for a few and then wandered off. Afterward I was kicking myself for not getting a shot of the bridge with them in the foreground. Live and learn.
Were you hassled in the night? |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 11:24:27 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by e301:
There were a few stories over here recently about schools having to get (effectively) releases from pupils' parents for class shots - that was when the paedophilia paranoia was at its height.
There really are an awful lot of fabulously stupid people in the world.
Ed |
The problem isn't people being fabulously stupid...the problem is with the 2% of the population that are total perverts and prey on kids. Too many kids have become victims because of too much information, and the perverts of the world find the victims frequently through newspaper articles and internet searches.
|
I don't understand the logic here. If 2% of the population want to find a kid to kidnap then a school's going to be an easy target, and so is a playground and a whole host of other places. How is taking a photo of a child in any of those areas going to make it simpler for a kidnapper to get hold of them? |
|
|
|
05/22/2003 11:27:42 AM · #25 |
maybe all they want is to take some pics of kids to view in private :P
|
|
