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 1 - 25 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/16/2010 01:37:55 PM · #1
If You Put That Picture On The Internet Iíll Call My Lawyer

//www.whirljack.net/jeremybrooks/2008/05/06/if-you-put-that-picture-on-the-internet-ill-call-my-lawyer/
06/16/2010 01:41:53 PM · #2
HaHalarious!
06/16/2010 01:44:03 PM · #3
Actually, I dont think the photographer can do what this guy did. Specially to degrade the man's character. I could be wrong, but I dont think it was a wise move to put his photo on the internet without his permission.
06/16/2010 01:45:05 PM · #4
I don't know whats funnier, the story or all the comments calling out the photographer.
06/16/2010 01:52:08 PM · #5
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:

Actually, I dont think the photographer can do what this guy did. Specially to degrade the man's character. I could be wrong, but I dont think it was a wise move to put his photo on the internet without his permission.


Dude was perfectly within his rights to post that photo.
06/16/2010 01:52:30 PM · #6
Originally posted by smardaz:

I don't know whats funnier, the story or all the comments calling out the photographer.


the comments are by far funnier than the story
06/16/2010 01:56:28 PM · #7
I like the comments much more than the story itself.
And if someone shouting and yelling in the street, you should consider his mental heath status. No healthy clever man will do that easily. Depression, hyperthyroiditis and some other health problems can cause this as this is not only about his personal character. If someone doesn't want you to shoot him/her, you should not. Try to be empathic. Put yourself in his situation. This guy can be a mentaly ill and harm you in any way. He can break your camera on your head, he can break some part of your body (i am sure you are strong enough to fight) or maybe you can hurt him if a fight stars. So where it will end, one you in jail, long lawyer talks, courts, loosing too much precious time.
Just walking away is a better choice. If you wonder about the poor homeless guy, just call the police.
06/16/2010 01:57:33 PM · #8
Originally posted by mycelium:

Originally posted by JaimeVinas:

Actually, I dont think the photographer can do what this guy did. Specially to degrade the man's character. I could be wrong, but I dont think it was a wise move to put his photo on the internet without his permission.


Dude was perfectly within his rights to post that photo.


I cannot agree with you on that. The photographer had the right to take the photo of him. But without his written permission, I dont think he can legally post them (unless he is a public figure like a celeb or politician). I think one can only publish photos of people for journalistic or educationation purposes and not need their permission. In this case I think its neither. I think the photographer's purpose was to degrade the individual's character.

Message edited by author 2010-06-16 13:58:31.
06/16/2010 02:31:41 PM · #9
The photographer has some very good photos on his site.

However, if someone asked me specifically not to post their photo, I'd probably comply, depending on the circumstances. It seems like the man scared the photographer, who got his revenge by posting the photo -- understandable human nature.

By the way, the photo was posted and commented on over two years ago... looks like it's enjoying a revival.

06/16/2010 02:40:10 PM · #10
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:



I cannot agree with you on that. The photographer had the right to take the photo of him. But without his written permission, I dont think he can legally post them (unless he is a public figure like a celeb or politician). I think one can only publish photos of people for journalistic or educationation purposes and not need their permission. In this case I think its neither. I think the photographer's purpose was to degrade the individual's character.


If it's not used for commercial purposes, it is legal. Whether or not it's moral is another question...
06/16/2010 02:46:51 PM · #11
Originally posted by jvaughn94:

Originally posted by JaimeVinas:



I cannot agree with you on that. The photographer had the right to take the photo of him. But without his written permission, I dont think he can legally post them (unless he is a public figure like a celeb or politician). I think one can only publish photos of people for journalistic or educationation purposes and not need their permission. In this case I think its neither. I think the photographer's purpose was to degrade the individual's character.


If it's not used for commercial purposes, it is legal. Whether or not it's moral is another question...


Exactly. When you're in a public place, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Consent is not necessary to take a photo, nor to post it, unless it's used for commercial purposes.
06/16/2010 06:03:10 PM · #12
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.
06/16/2010 06:55:36 PM · #13
Wow. Comments on the linked-to site make DPC look tame, civilized, constructive ...
06/16/2010 07:11:46 PM · #14
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

Wow. Comments on the linked-to site make DPC look tame, civilized, constructive ...


Well that's pretty typically when there's no forum moderation. Remove that here and there wouldn't be much of a difference after awhile.
06/16/2010 07:21:21 PM · #15
Prash has a good point about the defamation. For example, Rhode Island has a cyber statute that could cost a RI photographer in a similar situation some bucks if someone wanted to push it.

06/16/2010 07:34:34 PM · #16
Actually, you can make money off the photo, you just can't use it to endorse a product. There was a guy in New York that made lots of money off a photo of some Amish guy (or something along those lines). The Amish guy sued and lost, the judge saying that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy on a city street.
06/16/2010 07:35:47 PM · #17
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

Wow. Comments on the linked-to site make DPC look tame, civilized, constructive ...


After ready the comments, I feel dirty and I want to go back to a safer place.
There's no place like DPC. There's no place like DPC. There's no place like DPC.

Message edited by author 2010-06-16 19:36:14.
06/16/2010 07:41:13 PM · #18
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.


How do the paparazzi get away with this?
06/16/2010 07:48:31 PM · #19
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

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.


How do the paparazzi get away with this?


I have no idea. Unless they stand on public grounds (or air in a chopper), and use extreme zooms to capture what is readily visible from the public property, AND they are not capturing what is otherwise considered 'private', OR they make enough money from selling the photograph that they can settle the claims outside the courts??:-)

ETA: Oh and don't forget 13 of the US states have augmenting laws protecting the privacy of a person on public grounds (CA and MA included). Example: You CANNOT record the voice of a person in a conversation in CA without their explicit consent, no matter what.

Disclaimer: What is stated above is my interpretation only, I am not a lawyer.

Message edited by author 2010-06-16 19:52:37.
06/17/2010 06:56:45 AM · #20
Originally posted by Prash:



I have no idea. Unless they stand on public grounds (or air in a chopper), and use extreme zooms to capture what is readily visible from the public property, AND they are not capturing what is otherwise considered 'private', OR they make enough money from selling the photograph that they can settle the claims outside the courts??:-)

ETA: Oh and don't forget 13 of the US states have augmenting laws protecting the privacy of a person on public grounds (CA and MA included). Example: You CANNOT record the voice of a person in a conversation in CA without their explicit consent, no matter what.

Disclaimer: What is stated above is my interpretation only, I am not a lawyer.


I do know that in the state of MD and GA you can record a conversation AS LONG AS one side of the party knows they are being taped. FWIW I had to record ALL of my conversations with my ex wife.
06/17/2010 07:31:58 AM · #21
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:

Actually, I dont think the photographer can do what this guy did. Specially to degrade the man's character. I could be wrong, but I dont think it was a wise move to put his photo on the internet without his permission.

Originally posted by mycelium:

Dude was perfectly within his rights to post that photo.

How about the guy degraded his own character by trying to bully a stranger into behaving in the manner he sees fit, regardless of the his right to photograph someone in a public place? This man abused, harassed, and physically assaulted the photog. If there was a witness, and the photog wanted to push the issue and file charges, this guy would have problems. I'm surprised any photog would see it any other way.

Somebody please explain how what this photog did was immoral. Maybe petty and vindictive, but he could have called the police. He showed a certain level of empathy by not having this guy arrested. On what level is someone allowed to demand your camera, much less grab it?
06/17/2010 07:34:33 AM · #22
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


(snip)
He showed a certain level of empathy by not having this guy arrested. (snip)


not to mention he didn't post the picture with the daughter, which at least SOUNDS like the better shot. he deserves credit for his restraint.
06/17/2010 08:06:21 AM · #23
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


(snip)
He showed a certain level of empathy by not having this guy arrested. (snip)


Originally posted by FourPoint7:

not to mention he didn't post the picture with the daughter, which at least SOUNDS like the better shot. he deserves credit for his restraint.

True that!
06/17/2010 08:19:23 AM · #24
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
06/17/2010 08:38:27 AM · #25
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.

Message edited by author 2010-06-17 08:39:08.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/17/2020 02:22:27 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/17/2020 02:22:27 AM EST.