john_h.1

<p>I believe he should be dismissed and charged with whatever California's equivalent of statutes are regrading destruction of property, breach of peace, assault (which usually can involve mere touching) and possibly tampering with evidence. Being under the pressure of the public spotlight and in hot water at work is something for now at least. But, mostly, I hope this gets enough attention to promote the end of police power used to violate the constitutional rights of those who photograph law enforcement, which deviates from the dedicated service provided by the large majority of our law enforcement officers.<br /><br />This wasn't some split second decision in the midst of a scuffle. He knew what he was doing and did so on purpose. What other officers knew is less clear.<br /><br />This type of suppression of recording, itself, reveals why it is so important to prevent it.</p>

<p>Obviously with a rail tour there is no control over when and where you can shoot or even pause to do so when something suitable comes. For sightseeing, its pleasant. For photography, IMO, almost pointless. Almost, I say, because there may stops there may be for things to do or photograph which may provide some opportunities.<br /><br />As for a van of several families members, that is problematic as well. They will want to see places so you get to do that and some stop offs will likely occur but patience and accommodation for serious photography, which takes time and being at the right pace at the right time. is unlikely. Which is totally understandable as one person dominating the schedule and making people wait around is typically undesired.<br /><br />If you can get away on your own for a day or two (long days as nighttime then is so limited) then you are in good shape to cover Kenai and Turnagain Arm which has maybe the most stuff in a manageable area. Denali will be much better if you are there when it is not overcast and, unless you get to hike a bit, you will be shooting some pics from the side of the road if you can stop for such things. If you go with that kind of gang of family, you will most likely be stuck going to Talkeetna which is a tiny tourist trap with some stores and a few restaurants or so. You can sneak in a few good off beat pics walking around there if you are creative. <br /><br />If you can't get your own rental car (which is very expensive there) your best bet is probably to use the van while others are kicking back for the night at the lodging. It will be daylight untill around 11 pm or so and also at wee like hours in the morning. Otherwise, you are along for the ride, literally. Which isn't necessarily bad for photography as you can make some awesome family vacation photos which everyone can enjoy for years to come rather than typical snapshots.</p>

<p>...but didn't realize there was a someone else will a cell phone recording the cell phone recording...<br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/california-marshal-smashed-phone/index.html</p>

<p>Craig's link IS interesting. It appears California does not currently see use of real property in commercial use as an invasion of privacy of the owners or occupants and South Carolina rejected other theories that were raised as to ownership of property.<br /><br />I noticed from the links in the link Craig provided that Attorney Carolyn Wright shares my concern over what I called a self fulfilling prophecy as to property releases when she writes...<br /><br /><em>"If the building owner signs the release, he will expect the next photographer to ask for a property release, too. If permission is not requested, will the owner sue the second photographer for doing something within his rights? Will all photographers then have to get permission or pay for something when it is not legally required?"</em></p>

<p>For the U.S... Although this is a state level case it is a leading example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Benoit said about not needing a release for things you can see from public property is legal advice I have seen in many, many articles over the years either written by lawyers or quoting lawyers"</p> </blockquote> <p> Citing a copyright statute in support. Where is the cite for property releases in that context?</p>

<p>I don't know about of the specific situations the were reported on and don't know what is true or not but, I am never surprised that people with extremely poor ethics to begin with lash out at those who expose them for what they are.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"in order to commercially license images on istock/getty a property release is needed."</p> </blockquote> <p>The prophecy on its way to becoming fulfilled. I would hope that Getty at.al. have considered if a property release, properly drafted, applies in perpetuity as new owners come and go. Maybe they feel confident about future interpretation.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"what happens when the releasing party is no long the owner of the property."</p> </blockquote> <p>Good question. I haven't researched in to it myself. Largely due to this article which showed that propery release research may have been a waste of time... <br /><br />https://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html#.VSxnWpPxQih<br /><br />The authors speculated property releases would be attributable to new owners. But rights and obligations that "run with the land" are usually real property related rights. Easements, leases to tenants and such. Is a 'property' release really only a real property issue or is it like the association issue mentioned in the website? What new case law has been created since the article was published, I don't know. I strongly suspect whatever exists, if anything, is not, as they say, well settled. Contrary decisions, in the future and elsewhere, can be expected.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Great explination. I'm starting to get a better feel for this subject."</p> </blockquote> <p>Unfortunately, that's not actually the case because Benoit is discussing and citing copyright ownership and licensing issues which are completely different and separate from the property release issues which is what you are asking about.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"If they are being sold through stock agencies, which the OP says is the reason for the release requirement, then it would seem that is the case."</p> </blockquote> <p>I wonder if the realtor or their clients know the photographer may want to place images of the property on a stock site? </p>

<p>Property releases for images used to by a realtor to sell the property of their clients? Really? This whole property release thing is getting out of hand. It was a barely existing practice in the past for isolated situations affecting other intellectual property and collateral privacy concerns. Its slowly but steadily becoming a broader self fulfilling prophecy caused by people conjuring up reasons and scenarios to use them creating the impression by those asked to sign them that they actually are a right they are granting which will only become so common that courts, one day, will treat it as an accepted phenomenon to enforce. Its stuff like this contributing to it. <br /><br />In addition to the issues Jeff raises is why would YOU need them? Are you using the images for something? Isn't the realtor using them? If a release were needed, it would also should to set forth the scope of the use. Unless these are celebrity homes or something, I doubt there is anything of value to them and it is unlikely anyone will agree to third party of use via a real estate listing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>Perhaps now is the time to engage the owners of the shop and offer to shoot some photos just for them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Great idea if you wish to do it. The potential customers may appreciate your discretion in not re-selling images not meant for stock ect.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"in-house photographer for a prominent interior designer who paid me to take some photos at a local store he frequents for his blog... ...I was already paid by my boss to take the photos... ...No contracts were signed"</p> </blockquote> <p>Assuming U.S. law applies... If you were an employee or amounted to an employee (because there was substantial control over your activities) and the shoot was in the scope of your employment, then the works belong to the employer. If you did separate outside work for some boss there that had nothing to do with your employment and there was not much control exceeded over you (as though you were hired from the phone book for a one off shoot) then it is likely you own the copyrights. See Circular 9 at copyright .gov for more detail...<br /><br />http://copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf</p>

<p>Maybe the Texas Legislature can take up a Improper Bluebonnet photography law or a 25' Bluebonnet photography buffer zone.</p>

<p>These kind of things are very risky. Either you are dependent on the client but still get blamed when things don't work out or the client's plans change and you are paying for in advance for things that may turn out to be incompatible. Its a logistical nightmare as it is anyway. You can get whacked for all sorts of things beyond your control. In just one example, what if you get sick? Who pays for the on board exorbitant medical/medication fees or medivac if needed? Sure there is prepaid insurance but what about your gear? The shots crated so far. Who gets refunded? by how much? The potential contingencies are many and the subset of contingencies when those contingencies arise is daunting. <br /><br />The there is the normal but often forgotten stuff. Tips. Tips galore. Meal.drink fees. Cruise lines photography rules and restrictions. Taxi cab fare. Excursion fees (to follow the clients on excusion) and on and on.<br /><br />What a contract it would take to cover it all. Id the client going to agree to an enormous contingency expense retainer paid far in advance so you won't be left holding the bag on anything? Probably not. Will they dispute some things paid for after? Maybe.<br> <br />This is all before you even get to how much work for how much fees.</p>

<p>Some photographer's have a make up artist/set up assistant present which serves the dual function of that job and as the chaperone/witness. It is disarming as they have a photographic function to serve other than awkwardly hovering around. They also tell the client rather than tip toeing around it which invites discussion the client to feel awkward about it. There is a psychology of acceptance when a professional just does stuff in a professional matter of fact way rather than being all wishy washy about it. If you aren't confident about it, how is anyone else going to be?<br /><br />Secret audio recording is a criminal act in many places.</p>

<p>Switching gears a bit, if anyone is still reading... <br /><br />What kind of conduct do photographers, in particular, do that is disruptive to law enforcement performing their duties and what restrictions, relative to photography and not just generally, will actually prevent that?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"This is the sort of thing photojournalists should boycott. Might as well just restrict photography to approved public relations photographers to ensure they get whatever the hell it is they mean by flattering photos."</p> </blockquote> <p> I imagine that is what might happen as a result of any boycott. It might happen anyway. Although, I am skeptical that a boycott would be adhered to broadly enough to be effective. <br /><br />What does the place mean by accredited? Like credentials which may be from media organizations which may provide access to venues or is it like someone approved for in house shooting on behalf of the business?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I doubt asking the management would get a very definitive answer."</p> </blockquote> <p><br />True, but it should yield SOME guidance. After all, they are the ones that "know it".</p>

<blockquote> <p>How can comments on Photo.net be protected speech, you ask? Is this not private property?! It is so because Photo.net engages in interstate commerce and thus falls under federal jurisdiction, just as it would if the issue were discrimination in employment.</p> </blockquote> <p>1st Amendment freedom of speech protections are a shield only against the government. Not against private people and entities suppressing or acting against speech. The jurisdiction does not arise from the Commerce Clause like some laws regulating what amounts to interstate commerce do. Indeed, freedom of speech is not even a law. It forbids laws. It arises from being specifically mentioned in the 1st Amendment and that only applied to the states in 1925. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York.</p> <blockquote> <p>If any post is deleted because someone disagrees with the content or political point of view of the poster, then that person and his employer is liable for civil damages under the law.As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I am prepared to make that point in a court of law if necessary.</p> </blockquote> <p> Unless it is accomplished as a result of a government action, you will fail miserably.</p>

<blockquote> <p>My feeling about the Instagram backlash is that the photographer probably made a poor choice by posting it there given the site's user demographic. Had the images been posted here, and the first image was selected as a PoW, the ensuing discussion would have been quite different and probably more inline with how the photographer had intended it to be received.</p> </blockquote> <p>I suspect the intent was to purposefully make the 'poor choice' to inspire the discussion that IS taking place.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Is it is, laws are much more easily enforced (and obeyed) when there is a discrete or objective measure at work. The problem is, many situations don't lend themselves readily to objective rules and it's hard not to be at least a little arbitrary. One size usually doesn't fit all."</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly right. <br /><br />A measure can be a little arbitrary (meaning as as applied) constitutionally and adjusted accordingly to provide exceptions to save the measure overall. Sometimes, however, it is plainly or facially arbitrary. Meaning, it is not only unduly restrictive constitutionally as applied, it unworkable for just about anyone. Even the most skilled and equipped can be frustrated by the countless instant variables. Then there is the traditional journalist exception. Facially arbitrary due to there being no discernible reason for an exception practically PLUS no discernible reason as to superiority in having a right to report or express. Facially arbitrary as to the firearm possession multiplier for the same dual reasons. Facially arbitrary because it only relates to protected journalistic and expression related conduct with no discoverable difference in the supposed goal. <br /><br /> There are so many layers to this one, it would be a mega-facially arbitrary law.</p>

<blockquote> <p>How are the photographers supposed to know what the management considers "unflattering"?</p> </blockquote> <p>Asking the management?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"You couldn't make it up"</p> </blockquote> <p>Why would it be bizarre for a venue to not provide special access to photographers who present its events in an unfavorable light?</p>