Legality question... - DPChallenge Forums

08/21/2007 11:54:44 AM · #26

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Well lets run a different scenario. I get word that a violent organization will be holding a public rally somewhere. In the past, these rallies have ended in large brawls, resulting in multiple injuries and arrests.

If I go to that rally with the express intent of photographing this group committing crimes, am I in the wrong there?

in the wrong, probably not. In danger of getting trampled by the marchers and/or the police, probably. On dubious ground with your insurance company, likely.

08/21/2007 11:55:24 AM · #27

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Do you honestly not know the answer to that? Or are you just bored and filling the forums with endless amounts of ridiculous bullshit?

It's refreshing to have a new person doing it though.

08/21/2007 11:56:22 AM · #28

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Do you honestly not know the answer to that? Or are you just bored and filling the forums with endless amounts of ridiculous bullshit?

Way to go straight into dick mode.

Its the same scenario as my first question, but instead of legit answers, which I got maybe 2 of, I got everyone's personal ideology on right or wrong, so I decided to circumvent that by using a different scenario which is a lot more common (see G4/Worldbank riots every year.)

Message edited by author 2007-08-21 11:57:09.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/21/2007 11:58:00 AM · #29

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Its the same scenario as my first question, but instead of legit answers, which I got maybe 2 of, I got everyone's personal ideology on it, so I decided to circumvent that by using a different scenario which is a lot more common (see G4/Worldbank riots every year.)

except of course its an entirely different scenario, given that in the first case you are talking about going with a bunch of friends who you expressly know are going to be breaking the law and trespassing on private property, and in the second case you aren't, but yeah ,if it works for you.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/21/2007 12:01:00 PM · #30

According to Delaware law

//delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc01/index.shtml

511. Conspiracy in the third degree; class A misdemeanor.
A person is guilty of conspiracy in the third degree when, intending to promote or facilitate commission of a misdemeanor, the person:
(1) Agrees with another person or persons that they or 1 or more of them will engage in conduct constituting the misdemeanor or an attempt or solicitation to commit the misdemeanor; or
(2) Agrees to aid another person or persons in the planning or commission of the misdemeanor or an attempt or solicitation to commit the misdemeanor, and the person or another person with whom the person conspired commits an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy.
Conspiracy in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor. (11 Del. C. 1953, Â§ 511; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, Â§ 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 203, Â§ 7; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, Â§ 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, Â§ 1.)

On the tagging, you are guilty. On the Mob, you are not sure a crime will or won't take place, so not guilty.

08/21/2007 12:01:30 PM · #31

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Its the same scenario as my first question, but instead of legit answers, which I got maybe 2 of, I got everyone's personal ideology on it, so I decided to circumvent that by using a different scenario which is a lot more common (see G4/Worldbank riots every year.)

except of course its an entirely different scenario, given that in the first case you are talking about going with a bunch of friends who you expressly know are going to be breaking the law and trespassing on private property, and in the second case you aren't, but yeah ,if it works for you.

Good point.

I guess I could just state my question like this and maybe get a few straight answers:

Is there a legal limit to what a documentary/journalistic photographer is able to document without personal legal liability - for example a crime being committed.

But I guess I got enough answers. Thanks guys.

08/21/2007 12:03:00 PM · #32

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Awesome, thank you.

08/21/2007 12:04:30 PM · #33

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

You aren't going to get a clean answer, until you spend your day in court I suspect. Factors like are you really a journalist will no doubt be part of it (e.g., which press organisation(s) do you work for would be a factor in how legitimate your claim would be I suspect)

How much money you are prepared to pay to defend yourself would also be another likely factor.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

08/21/2007 12:09:32 PM · #34

Who knows. Oh well. Thanks for the legit advice.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

08/21/2007 12:47:12 PM · #35

Graffiti can be art but a lot of the time it's vandalism.

Why not consult with a building owner about doing a legit mural rather than defacing the building without their knowledge.

Who knows, you may even get paid for it.

Message edited by author 2007-08-21 12:47:43.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/21/2007 12:53:54 PM · #36

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Thats a swell idea, but it would defeat the purpose of profiling specific artists and their style. They would perform differently if they were without time constraints, as well as I'm sure they wouldn't be able to do whatever they wanted on the building.

I was just using graf artists as an example too, I meant this thread to be a blanket question about the legal issues involved with documentary photography.

frisca

Nikon D70

08/21/2007 12:57:38 PM · #37

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Graffiti can be art but a lot of the time it's vandalism.

Why not consult with a building owner about doing a legit mural rather than defacing the building without their knowledge.

Who knows, you may even get paid for it.

Thats a swell idea, but it would defeat the purpose of profiling specific artists and their style. They would perform differently if they were without time constraints, as well as I'm sure they wouldn't be able to do whatever they wanted on the building.

Well, they'd perform differently only in that they could plan a bigger piece, work on it in one go, instead of clandestinely over several days or weeks. You'd get better art, but maybe not as exciting a documentary.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

08/21/2007 12:58:50 PM · #38

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

True they may not be able to do everything they want, but .....

Some of the people doing graffiti are very good artists and expanding their repertoire to doing a full size mural for somebody could be very lucrative and open up a lot more doors than sneaking around in the middle of the night.

drewbixcube

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

08/21/2007 01:05:00 PM · #39

Don't forget that at 2am, you will need to shoot with a flash to capture your images. Frequent bursts of light might attract security guards or police, especially in a train yard!

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/21/2007 01:18:21 PM · #40

sorry, don't have time to read all the thread, so pardon any redundancies...

don't do it

if you're tresspassing, you can be arrested and charged.

if there is reason to believe you have evidence, they can hold your camera and/or memory card until the get the paperwork necessary to keep/get whatever they need until trial. this could also include coming to your home with a supoena to take your home computer to their labs for a complete look-through.

there's a big difference between taking risks to get images that are newsworthy and breaking the law just for grins. i guess it just depends on how much you can afford to lose...

ETA: also, there's a huge difference between doing something on assignment from a recognized news agency and doing something on your own...

Message edited by author 2007-08-21 13:20:35.

jtf6agent

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/21/2007 01:26:03 PM · #41

drewbixcube,
are you a journalist? this is the first question anyone will ask if your cought. As a photojournalist here in San Diego (Lawyer Meca) I have spent many hours photographing crime taking place. I have been in the middle of a fairly major riot during our famed May 1st "Day with out an Illegal Immigrant" and passed among the rioters and police lines untouched by both parties. As a "Photojournalist" and I use this term loosely you have rights of protection here in the USA. If you are working for a publication and you can prove it at the time then you are nothing more than an innocent journalist and will not be held liable. If you are just somebody out taking pics of someone you know tagging then clearly your busted. Journalist have certain rights to collect news that regular citizens don't but, you must be a working member of the press hence the coveted press card. I suggest you check with your local paper and ask if they would "Sponsor" your project your trying to photograph.

It's s thin line your asking and it sways back an forth in different areas so before setting out I would determine where the line lays in you neck of the woods. I'm currenlty working on an underground fight club and I'm not welcome by most and definatley not trusted by any. If I were to be at an event that was raided I feel pretty certain I would be free to go after proving who I was and showing that I had been working on this project for what it was. Good luck and be careful.

alexzen

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/21/2007 01:32:05 PM · #42

Just do it. Keep a good head about you. Live life on the edge.

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

08/21/2007 01:42:10 PM · #43

Originally posted by jtf6agent:

Journalist have certain rights to collect news that regular citizens don't but, you must be a working member of the press hence the coveted press card.

Is this actually true ? Are there specific laws/ rights granted only to accredited journalists ? Or is it just that there is generally more leeway accorded to journalists in this ethical grey area ? I'm curious. I'm not a journalist or lawyer, nor do I play one on the 'net.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/21/2007 01:57:20 PM · #44

This case seems somewhat analogous to your situation, though if you have prior knowledge of the intent to commit a crime, you are more likely to be considered guilty of either conspiracy or being an accessory before the fact, as opposed to just "covering an event" where a crime occurred but was not planned.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/21/2007 02:06:42 PM · #45

Thanks guys, I appreciated it....

But I guess the natural progression of this thread now leads to this question:

In a time where everyone has a blog, websites are relied on as news as much as news papers and tv, independent media (zines) are at the top of their game (both online and print), how does the law determine who is a proper pj and who is not?

The case the General pointed out starts to raise this issue but doesnt delve into much detail though.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

08/21/2007 02:23:10 PM · #46

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

In a time where everyone has a blog, websites are relied on as news as much as news papers and tv, independent media (zines) are at the top of their game (both online and print), how does the law determine who is a proper pj and who is not?

while there is a lot of gray area, when push comes to shove, it seems to come down to how the publication conducts itself. is it a regular, periodic publication that is run like a business, or is it a hobby? is it licensed as a business, or is it off the record? does it conduct itself professionally, or is it just out there? are there subscribers?

it's just not enough to start a blog and call yourself a journalist. that's no different than owning a camera and calling yourself a photographer ;-)

i'm seeing the gray area becoming a bit more black and white in a number of places. people that were able to get media credentials by simply having a blog or website are starting to face stricter scrutiny by credentialling organizations.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

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

08/21/2007 02:24:47 PM · #47

I don't know about the law, but my common sense tells me that if you're alone in seeing a crime being committed and thus the only one able to report it, yet failed to report it because you wanted it to continue so you could photograph it, then yes, you would be aiding and abetting.

If there were a crowd watching with cellphones in hand when you arrived, you might be excused for assuming that someone had already reported, and you could grab all the shots you wanted.

08/21/2007 02:37:54 PM · #48

Originally posted by BeeCee:

I don't know about the law, but my common sense tells me....

Since when has common sense and the law ever coincided?!