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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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,
- 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.
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.
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?
- 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.
- 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.
