Right to not be photographed in public?

I read this story about an incident in America. It was from an article called "News of the

Weird," but I believe it is true, as it cites a legitimate newspaper:

 

"In January, Judge Peter Garcia, driving relatives to his courthouse at noon in Covington,

La., noticed an odd sight directly across the street in the municipal cemetery: Two women

in pink lingerie, holding S&M accessories, were posing for a professional photo shoot

among the gravestones. Garcia grabbed his camera to take his own souvenir photo, which

apparently angered one of the women, who pursued Garcia back to his car, lecturing the

unknown-to-her judge about various "rights" she thought she had not to be

photographed. When Garcia ignored her, she began to thrash the judge's car with her whip

before he finally drove away. [Times-Picayune, 1-24-04]"

 

It is an interesting event. I do a ot of street photography in Japan, and I have never been

whipped, even by strange people. Do others have similar stories about taking pictures in

public?

I can whip you if you feel left out. ;p

My mother and sister each threaten to beat me when I offer to take their photographs. They don't make the same threats against others; I don't understand.

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson as The Joker: This country needs an enema.

It is socially acceptable in the United States to take photographs in public. Whippings, on the other hand, are more appropriately done in private.

that's the judge's story and he's sticking to it.

I think that photographer was Dennis, wasn't it? He told me he was going to Covington for the weekend when I asked him about the whips he was carrying.

OT. I note with approval that Takkinda no longer uses his (?) last name.

I think I have a case pending before Judge Garcia right now.

 

Dennis

Anybody named Hans involved - big lens, large entourage?

Don't talk to Hans. He will get angry...

The Right to not be photographed in public, would be another way of saying people have the right to privacy in public. I don't think so.

Once in Beverly Hills, CA i wasa trying to take a pic of a general public area with my N90s and 50 on a tripod. Suddenly a very well dressed butler appeared and announced that "professional" pics could not be taken from that property, while tourists with Point and Shoots were snapping away merrily.

<p>When i told him, i was not a professional, he said my camera was and that made me a pro :))

<p>Anyways, i pointed to a bus stop 2 feet away which was City of Los Angeles property. I moved my camera to that spot and shot merrily, while he just watched..., loved his expression, when i reminded that my second position was owned by City of LA..

Yeah, just as the right to free speech allows someone to stand in the street outside a Hell's Angels clubhouse yelling "only pinheads ride Harley's" you should be able to take photographs of strangers in public...and with the same result.

What's another felony to a Hell's Angel?

Jay, plan to visit North Carolina on July 4th and I'll set you up with the opportunity that you described.

I know a few Hell's Angels and I wouldn't look at them cross unless I wanted to die, and looking at people isn't illegal.

As I recall there are more than a few individuals who would not prefer to be photographed in Covington, Louisiana. Something about the tomato business.

I had a guy throw his shoes at me for taking his photo on the street funny thing was until he got in my face I hadn'r even taking his photo.

Ya know, most of the tough guys are happy to be photographed...<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/tattoomex.jpg"><br><i>Tattooed Man, Copyright 2002 Jeff Spirer</i></center></i></center>

My reading of the original event is that: it was a professional shoot and thereby subject to copyright protection. Anyone shooting a set that I arrange gets pretty short measure. My intellectual property is invested in the acquiring, arranging, lighting, etc of a subject. The judge would be in breach of all that.

<<<The doors were open and I could here a man say to his (tourist) friend that, if he wanted, he could go over to me and have the legal right to ask me what and why I was photographing.>>>

 

Well actually he would have such a right. You, likewise, have the right to shrug and walk away in response.

<<<My reading of the original event is that: it was a professional shoot and thereby subject to copyright protection. Anyone shooting a set that I arrange gets pretty short measure. My intellectual property is invested in the acquiring, arranging, lighting, etc of a subject. The judge would be in breach of all that.>>>

 

This is an inaccurate statement of the law. The judge is not in breach of anything.

Maybe a can of mace or pepper spray should be the next accesory added to our camera bag? If that is unacceptable to the rowdies, my next choice would be my PPK/S for which I have a carry permit. Nice German workmanship, outstanding form, fit, and function - goes well with any Leica screwmount - in fact, I would consider it to be my Leica screwthem.

Of course, fistfights and PPK's. Maybe Jay could hit James in the jaw for taking his picture and then James could shoot Jay. Presumably that would typify the American way of life - just hope Jeff would be around to take a picture of it (wearing a vest and football helmet).