DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> If You Put That Picture On The Internet......
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 34 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/17/2010 09:01:00 AM · #26
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Prash:
Public photography without the subject(s)'s consent is NOT a crime, unless you

- intend to defame the subject by publishing it,
- intend to make money off the photograph,
- are trying to intrude their 'privacy' (tricky to define this at a public place),
- are hindering law enforcement officers from doing their jobs,
- your photograph can be used against the nation's security, or
- you are not abiding by explicit posted signs that prohibit photography at a site.


"Intend to defame the subject by publishing it".

Sounds like this guy could have a problem then - not with the photograph, but with the text that accompanied it.

~Terry


I doubt it--defamation requires proving actual falsity. The text describes things that actually happened (e.g., shoving, grabbing) and matters of opinion (various epithets and judgments on the guy's character). All perfectly First Amendmenty.


Im a bit appalled how some folks on here think its in their right to do an act like this. Yes the guy in the photograph was a jerk, yes went as far as possible assault, but it doesnt seem right for the photographer to post his photo online and start a defamation procedure.

If he really had a problem with the guy, he should have gone to the authorities and handled it that way instead of making a public humiliation forum online.

I would never in a million years would do something like this. Not only do I feel that it is morally wrong as a photographer, I also think that defamation of his character is out of line here and against the law, regardless of what he did.

Joe,
The papparazzi can get away with it because photographing celebrities without consent for profit is legal because they are public figures. My guess they get away with it on their properties is because they cannot prove that they took the photo on their properties.
06/17/2010 09:23:45 AM · #27
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Im a bit appalled how some folks on here think its in their right to do an act like this. Yes the guy in the photograph was a jerk, yes went as far as possible assault, but it doesnt seem right for the photographer to post his photo online and start a defamation procedure.

If he really had a problem with the guy, he should have gone to the authorities and handled it that way instead of making a public humiliation forum online.

I would never in a million years would do something like this. Not only do I feel that it is morally wrong as a photographer, I also think that defamation of his character is out of line here and against the law, regardless of what he did.


Morals aside, the Constitution has no problem with the posting of either that photo or the accompanying text. Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim; here, the photo isn't lying, and the opinions expressed in the accompanying text aren't matters of fact capable of truth or falsity. If the guy in the photo filed a law suit, it wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss.
 06/17/2010 09:25:43 AM · #28
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Im a bit appalled how some folks on here think its in their right to do an act like this. Yes the guy in the photograph was a jerk, yes went as far as possible assault, but it doesnt seem right for the photographer to post his photo online and start a defamation procedure.

If he really had a problem with the guy, he should have gone to the authorities and handled it that way instead of making a public humiliation forum online.

I would never in a million years would do something like this. Not only do I feel that it is morally wrong as a photographer, I also think that defamation of his character is out of line here and against the law, regardless of what he did.


Morals aside, the Constitution has no problem with the posting of either that photo or the accompanying text. Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim; here, the photo isn't lying, and the opinions expressed in the accompanying text aren't matters of fact capable of truth or falsity. If the guy in the photo filed a law suit, it wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss.


Just because you can doesn't mean you should....
 06/17/2010 09:30:55 AM · #29
Originally posted by bassbone:
Just because you can doesn't mean you should....


The moral question is much more difficult than the legal question--which is why I'm avoiding it :)
 06/17/2010 10:10:39 AM · #30
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Prash:
Public photography without the subject(s)'s consent is NOT a crime, unless you

- intend to defame the subject by publishing it,
- intend to make money off the photograph,
- are trying to intrude their 'privacy' (tricky to define this at a public place),
- are hindering law enforcement officers from doing their jobs,
- your photograph can be used against the nation's security, or
- you are not abiding by explicit posted signs that prohibit photography at a site.


"Intend to defame the subject by publishing it".

Sounds like this guy could have a problem then - not with the photograph, but with the text that accompanied it.

~Terry


I doubt it--defamation requires proving actual falsity. The text describes things that actually happened (e.g., shoving, grabbing) and matters of opinion (various epithets and judgments on the guy's character). All perfectly First Amendmenty.


Truth is a defense to libel, but not to the namecalling ("Mr. Angry Overreaction Man", tagging the blog entry with "idiot"). Still, given the likelihood of a countersuit and/or criminal charges (assault, harassment, trespass of chattels and attempted robbery to name a few) his lawyer most likely wouldn't touch it.
 06/17/2010 10:17:48 AM · #31
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Truth is a defense to libel, but not to the namecalling ("Mr. Angry Overreaction Man", tagging the blog entry with "idiot"). Still, given the likelihood of a countersuit and/or criminal charges (assault, harassment, trespass of chattels and attempted robbery to name a few) his lawyer most likely wouldn't touch it.


Agreed, the risk of countersuit is a major deterrent--but the poster here wouldn't need a defense of truth if the subject of the photo claimed that the name-calling was defamatory. A defamatory statement must also be false to be actionable. Statements of opinion aren't actionable unless they assume the existence of other defamatory facts.
 06/17/2010 11:11:40 AM · #32
just out of curiosity.... because I didn't read the entire article, but did the photographer identify this man in the photograph ???? Further more, his face is almost completely obscured.. It seems to me the photographer picked this particular image on purpose, because you really can't identify who he is... So, if no one knows his name, and you can't really see his face, how is what's been posted going to affect him in any way shape or form ????
 06/19/2010 06:38:34 PM · #33
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by Prash:
, unless you

- intend to defame the subject by publishing it,
- intend to make money off the photograph,
- are trying to intrude their 'privacy' (tricky to define this at a public place),
- are hindering law enforcement officers from doing their jobs,
- your photograph can be used against the nation's security, or
- you are not abiding by explicit posted signs that prohibit photography at a site.


How do the paparazzi get away with this?


They get away with it because the celebrities need the paparazzi, and vice versa. As much as celebrities complain about the attention, they seek it out when it is time to promote their current project.

Besides that, the pictures are ostensibly editorial, not advertising or endorsement.
 06/19/2010 09:43:05 PM · #34
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Im a bit appalled how some folks on here think its in their right to do an act like this. Yes the guy in the photograph was a jerk, yes went as far as possible assault, but it doesnt seem right for the photographer to post his photo online and start a defamation procedure.

POSSIBLE assault????? Defamation procedure?????

I have to say that you have these backwards. It absolutely, uneqivocally was an assault, and is *possibly* a defamation procedure IF Mr Jerk took him to court and won, which would be highly unlikely.

I'm not quite sure why you seem to think this incredible jerk is somehow in the right on any level. If the guy would have come at me that way, and laid so much as one finger on me, he wouldn't have had to worry about the pics on the 'Net......just bail money for the assault charge.

What makes people think they can decide that you can't take their picture without one shred of right to do so? I generally accede to people's wishes not to shoot them right up until they start spouting that crap about rights and permission when they're in a public place. They start that sh*t, I usually ask them if they want to call the police, or should I. They usually quiet down at that point.

This guy was off the charts from the word go with his screaming at a homeless man. All of a sudden we give a sh*t about his feelings and the heck with the way he basically attcked the photog?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 05:10:26 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 05:10:26 AM EDT.