michael s.

June 17, 2010

The Maryland motorcyclist's case, referred to in several posts above, was the subject of a front page article in yesterday's "Washington Post."

Bill from NYC is mistaken. The only basis for the criminal charge relating to the cyclist's posted video is the audio recording. He has been charged under Maryland's wiretapping statute.

(And here I agree with Bill that the charge is not well founded.)

Here is the article from the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505556.html

June 16, 2010

By way of an update, this story made the front page of the printed version of today's "Washington Post," and it included a prominent mention of the blog, Photography is Not a Crime.

The Washington Post story (June 16,2010) is here:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505556.html?hpid=newswell" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505556.html?hpid=newswell</a>

May 7, 2010

I am a US citizen, and I live in the DC Metro area ... and I do communicate quite a bit with appropriate authorities. :-)

May 6, 2010

I don't want to offer an answer to the specific question about the law in the U.K., because I I have no training in law in the UK and don't know the answer.

However, I did see this site which in turn refers to a pdf entitled "UK Photographers Rights Guide v2," written by a lawyer in the U.K. (I'd offer a direct link to the pdf, but the site specifically asks people not to do that.)

The site containing that link is here:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

Might be a helpful resource ?

May 5, 2010

<< ... preaching to the choir ... >>

You're right, Barry.

Maybe we can at least do one chorus like the old days, from our childhood, on "Sing Along with Mitch" ?

:-)

May 4, 2010

By now, I suspect nearly all of us have read at least something about the Times Square car bombing in New York over the weekend.

In that regard, I was especially interested to see this in today's Washington Post:

<< ... Police were expected to unveil what they described as a more illuminating video that appeared to show the Pathfinder's driver running away from the vehicle. "We obtained that from a tourist," Kelly said. ... >> [Emphasis mine. Kelly is the New York City Commissioner of Police.]

If a byproduct of this episode is the further debunking of the myth that street snappers somehow constitute a "threat to security," then I for one will be grateful.

The quoted language comes from this longer article about the uses and the shortcomings of surveillance video. I recommend the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050304522.html

May 3, 2010

True -- releases are not required for editorial photos. True -- releases are not required for all photos that "make money." Photos of persons on the public street, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be taken, published, and even sold as art without permission and without releases. And that holds whether at that moment the people on the street are doing something newsworthy (as appears to be the case in many of Mikael's editorial photos) or not.

Have to be careful with photo captions and titles, because of an area of defamation law often referred to as "false light." A crude example: photo of identifiable man taken in an area known for illegal drug trade and captioned "Waiting for someone ? ... Man on a notorious drug corner." This could be trouble, unless the fact is that the man photographed is involved in the illegal drug trade. If he is not, the photo and caption, taken together, could be actionable under a "false light" theory.

For photos to be used for commercial purposes or for trade (think advertising and endorsements) permission is required and releases should be obtained. I'll take issue with reducing to a "myth" the assertion that a release is "protection against a lawsuit." Depending upon the circumstances and the wording of the release, it can indeed furnish very useful protection.

The release doesn't "protect" the photographer in the sense that it magically disables someone from filing suit. (I'm an old enough lawyer to remember the phrase: "Hey, anybody with a typewriter and the cost of the filing fee can sue." We spoke that way back when there were typewriters.) However, a carefully worded release can furnish an extremely important defense to the lawsuit -- one that might end that suit far more quickly and at considerable cost savings.

Bert Krages, a lawyer in Oregon, has a site that offers very helpful general principles and legal commentary about photography: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

April 18, 2010

Thanks, Clive.

Worthwhile reading, though it jumps a bit from building to building as the author discusses restrictions, the art, the marketability, etc.

April 15, 2010

See the post by Albert Smith on this older thread about M6 metering.

Perhaps that applies to your M6 -- not enough light to activate the meter at all ?

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Bg2P

[A number of excellent b & w street photos on your flickr site, Rui. Highly recommended. :-) ]

April 1, 2010

Well, he has confessed: April Fools

http://jeffascough.typepad.com/af_rangefinder_blog/

My favorite feature: the Luminance Optimized Optical Framelines ('FOOL' spelled backwards).

March 20, 2010

Many here are broadly supportive of business owners deeply concerned that having their customers photographed outside their shops by street photographers will hurt their businesses. Fair enough.

How about a word of advice for those business owners -- a large and growing number it seems -- who secretly photograph their own customers inside their stores ... to help their businesses ?

This article is from today's New York Times :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/business/20surveillance.html?hp

As noted by Mr. Underhill, widely acknowledged as an authority in the field of "observational customer research" and the founder of Envirosell:

" ... people are taped dozens of times each day doing routine chores like pumping gas. Cameras, it seems, are pervasive. Stores are merely the latest frontier.

'We live our lives surrounded by them,' he said."

Sorry gang, but speaking for myself, I'm far less "creeped out" by the photographer I see -- the guy out on the public street -- than I am by the awareness that I'm being secretly filmed and photographed daily by a growing number of the businesses I patronize.

March 17, 2010

Why not go around to all the businesses in Burlington ? Why stop at just the 67 establishments at the Marketplace -- all of whom are evidently parties to this order ? Go to the grocery stores, too, and the gas stations, and all the restaurants. For good measure, throw in the medical building, assuming it's privately owned. Sign 'em up ... all of 'em.

A more comprehensive "Universal Trespass Order," such as the one I outlined, will ensure that this man -- who is gainfully employed in Burlington and not only has not committed any crime, but is not even alleged to have committed one or even contemplated committing one -- can be starved and run out of town.

Good riddance, too. After all, he takes photographs and "creeps people out." Never mind that the people whose photos he takes are out on the public street, where -- in the U.S. at least -- they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Maybe we're bothered by the person protesting against a government policy, or the one collecting money for a charity ? Maybe the one handing out religious pamphlets bothers us, too. Let's serve all of them with Orders, too. Who needs them, hanging around and "creeping people out."

Call me old fashioned, but this official mass blackballing, coupled with an unseemly threat of arrest by local police if one dares to enter any of 67 business premises, bothers me. I think it stinks.

March 14, 2010

C'mon Ray -- no L.A. celebrity photos. :-)

March 11, 2010

That's a very good point about the message needing to get to the officers on the beat.

The next paragraph of the statement suggests that this may well be the Minister's intention:

<< ... He added: 'Guidance has been provided to all police forces advising that these powers and offences should not be used to stop innocent members of the public, tourists or responsible journalists from taking photographs.' ... >>

Time and experience will tell whether that "guidance" makes its way down to the street.

March 11, 2010

Just yesterday (March 10, 2010) the UK publication "Amateur Photographer" reported on its website on a statement by the UK's Home Office Minister David Hanson following his meeting with photographers. Hanson, whose portfolio includes counter-terrorism in the UK, said he wanted to:

" ... reassure all those concerned with this issue that we have no intention of Section 44 or Section 58a [of the Terrorism Act] being used to stop ordinary people taking photos or to curtail legitimate journalistic activity."

The article is here:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Stop_and_search_and_photographers_Anti_terrorism_minister_issues_statement_news_295778.html

I started a thread over on Street/Doc before reading the comments on this thread, and realizing the news would likely be germane here.

March 11, 2010

The website of the UK publication "Amateur Photographer" reported yesterday that Home Office Minister David Hanson, whose portfolio includes counter-terrorism, had met with photographers and then issued a statement in which he said he wanted to ...

"... reassure all those concerned with this issue that we have no intention of Section 44 or Section 58a [of the Terrorism Act] being used to stop ordinary people taking photos or to curtail legitimate journalistic activity."

The article is found here:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Stop_and_search_and_photographers_Anti_terrorism_minister_issues_statement_news_295778.html

February 17, 2010

I do hip shots, but I prefer to use the more genteel phrase "waist-level shooting." :-)

I disagree with my friends who say that all hip shots look alike, unless one concedes that all eye-level photos -- with the exception of those for which the photographer has knelt down or gotten into a prone position -- also look alike.

As to the point Jacques makes, apparently feeling lucky (but not skillful) when he gets a successful hip shot, here I prefer to have it both ways: a sense of accomplishment when it works, but thoroughly absolved from fault when it fails. After all, it was "only" a hip shot, right ? Whadaya expect ? :)

If now and then one of mine succeeds, then I'll claim credit.

http://photocritiq.com/groups/?topic=834.0;all=1;infoMode=1

Finally, there is the location -- the hospital ER waiting area. That bothers me, too. Here I'd agree with Clive in part, but also disagree in part. Generally agreed: there should be no special rule for journalists vs. amateurs in public places.

However, in the U.S. at least, there are a number of patient privacy laws that would certainly be of potential concern to the hospital. These are federal laws applying both to public and private hospitals and clinics, by the way. (Indeed, some hospitals, or particular departments within hospitals, have limited or banned cell phones in part because they feature cameras.)

I very much doubt a photojournalist in the U.S. would be allowed by a hospital to sit inside a hospital ER waiting room to photograph patients and families, in a manner allowing identification of those persons, as they arrived seeking emergency medical care.

While it may be true that the hospital ER waiting room is in a sense a public place, it is by no means the same kind of public place as the street in front of that hospital.

I'm a consistent and outspoken advocate of the right to photograph on the public street, and in many other public places, too. Those who know me know that. But in the ER waiting area, had that been me -- either awaiting treatment myself or accompanying a family member or friend -- I'd likely have firmly requested no photos and probably I'd have advised the hospital of the issue as well.

February 1, 2010

To be exhibited at the Henry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin.

Clickable link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/arts/design/02magnum.html?hp

January 25, 2010

For Gary Mansfield (and others) -- a useful general guide addressing legal considerations of photos in public places in the U.S. is found here, on this lawyer's site. Both a one-page summary and a handbook are available:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Note: Not all public places are the same. In some public places -- a toilet stall in a public restroom, for example -- one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In most such public places, however, one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

My photo:

January 22, 2010

<< Any takers ? >>

Pnina - I like this photo. A fine splash of color with just a fleeting second of recognition -- you notice the eyes of the man seated on the left, just as he notices you (or us, as viewers) glancing into the cafe.

The hanging beads provide a little barrier, an attempt at privacy for patrons, but fortunately not enough of a shield to provide anonymity.

Also, this is a photo in which the camera motion -- I assume you're walking by ? -- actually contributes to the whole look. Or maybe the standing fan at the far right has stirred things up ? :-)

January 21, 2010

Double post ... somehow.

January 21, 2010

Bebo -- Virtually every photo of my old (and greatly missed) hometown, Chicago, warms my heart.

Yours "warms" it a bit more due to the unusual processing here -- an effect more like a painting and it's a look that I like. The pattern of a bunch of pedestrians in the middle of the crossing and a couple 'strays' on either side nearer to the sidewalk works well in this sort of shot.

January 8, 2010

Quite a personal statement, John, and a very powerful set of photos.

January 8, 2010

///

December 30, 2009

Very sad to hear this news.

Al was unfailingly gracious to newcomers and to those who asked questions. I recall reading a post once (possibly by Marc Lieberman ?) that said Al treated them as he would treat guests at his table at home.

That post was right on target.

My condolences to Al's family and his many photography friends.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by michael s.