Jump to content

Joseph Curewitz

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Joseph Curewitz

  1. (Sarcastic Font) "When uploading pictures, remember, this is the Hotel California of web sites"

     

    It MUST be painfully obvious at this point that the people who run photo.net either do not know what they are doing or flat out do not care. Our reporting so-called bugs and then waiting months for inaction nothing short of redefining...well, you get the idea.

     

    Hope my honesty does not get me banned - it has happend to some who tell truth to power! Although what would I really be missing?

    • Like 1
  2. (Edited response)

     

    Jennifer Ellis, I'm a lawyer in PA, USA. Nothing I write is legal advice.

    Answered Jun 8, 2016 · Upvoted by Adam Nyhan, Attorney at Opticliff Law

     

    Generally, in the United States, it is illegal for a non-lawyer to give legal advice with or without a disclaimer. I would say it is illegal in every state, but I have not checked the law in every state.

     

    Anyone can offer an opinion, understand. But actually providing legal advice is generally within the domain of a licensed lawyer. And even in the case of licensed attorneys, if you give legal advice in a state where you are not licensed, and you do not fall within an appropriate exception, you too are practicing law without a license.

     

    Therefore, I can offer broad, educational information to someone in New York, just like any other non-lawyer, but I cannot provide legal advice. On the other hand, I can provide legal advice in Pennsylvania, which is where I am licensed.

     

     

    A reminder that a contributor to this conversation is not a doctor, attorney or US citizen.

  3. blimey, talk about a complex issue. it would surely help potential mall photographers to be able to "quote" famous photographers, who'd made a name photographing malls, to law enforcement agents to help diffuse the situation.

     

     

    There is indeed a venue for that ~ it's called "going to COURT." Again, best of luck...

  4. Since someone else revived this thread from 2004 and the comments at that time were often inaccurate, I would like to add something.

     

    A store or mall is a "private space open to the public". As such the default rule is that photographers can take pictures freely, just as they could in a "public space", without the permission of subjects or property owners. There are two exceptions to the general rule:

     

    1. There is a highly visible sign that prohibits or limits photography or imposes conditions;

    2. An agent of the owner/occupant tells you to stop taking pictures. In that case, you cannot be forced to erase pictures already taken and your camera cannot legally be confiscated.

     

    You cannot be detained or be required to identify yourself. If you continue to take photos, the police can be called and you might be charged with criminal trespass. If a security guard or other person prevents you from leaving, he or she would could be charged with illegal confinement.

     

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    While Mr. Evans is somewhat correct ~ the signs DO NOT have to be HIGHLY VISIBLE. (Placed where the majority of mall visitors can see them). Here in America, many malls have a complete set of 'rules' posted by the restrooms.

     

    The rules not only cover photography, they outline specifically unacceptable behavior, horseplay and alcohol use...and the open carry or concealed carry of firearms and/or dangerous weapons. In addition to that, ( and contrary to popular belief ) you CAN have your camera confiscated and the photographs can be erased by mall security or an actual officer of the law. You WILL certainly have an action against the person who did that, best of luck trying to collect!

     

    A reminder; you should always consult a local attorney if you have questions about any photographic activity - it is a very poor choice to rely on the musings of someone who does not live in this country for legal advice!

  5. Nothing has changed, save this: PetaPixel works ~ no, they don't have forums like this, but they don't have the problems either. Post photos almost anywhere else and have smooth sailing.

     

    A good friend was banned for speaking 'Truth To Power' and quite frankly, I'm too old to suffer the Teenage Angst masquerading as a help desk here.

     

    I'll make a final determination late Summer...

     

    Bravo-Yankee-Echo

  6. @gerry Siegel ~ Not sure about you, but when I bite into an apple and discover half a worm...I stop eating! The emperor has no clothes. And what may be worse is the insistence of those (who shall remain nameless), not to abandon a sinking ship.

     

    Good leadership would have turned into great leadership had they admitted 'It Just Ain't Working' and went in a different direction with a competent web-site-developer-guru or whatever they call themselves these days.

     

    I'm only here part time but for the love of G-D, we have a dead horse here!

  7. Site is still unusable...

     

    I quite agree ~ and would rather see the entire site taken down and reworked than try to negotiate this mess.

     

    This isn't working, and it's time to be adult and admit that it will never work no matter how much time, money or effort is put to it. Let's move on, either back to a known website that may have been limited or forward with a company that can provide what is needed.

     

    This is not professional and worst of all it makes the entire pnet community look both stupid and silly.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...