Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > a question of ethics

Reply
Thread Tools

a question of ethics

 
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2006
JC Dill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:57:39 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>JC Dill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:08:53 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>She can almost certainly deny you the right
>>>>to take pictures in her place of business.
>>>
>>>No, she can't. (At least, US law doesn't give her any right to do
>>>so.)

>>
>>It most certainly does. As stated, *in her place of business*.
>>
>>>>Deciding what is "in" or "out" of that place of business might
>>>>be very difficult too!
>>>
>>>What she can do is ask you to leave her place of business. But she

>>
>>Which is to say, she can deny you the right to take pictures...

>
>No, they are not the same thing.


It *is*, if they can flat state that you are being removed
*because* you have a camera or were taking pictures. If they
had to make up something else, that would be different. (For
example, just try removing someone because you don't like either
men or women...)

>>>can't demand you stop taking photos either in or out of the business,

>>
>>That is an absurdly illogical statement.

>
>It is perfectly logical.


When the owner of a business can legally give you the option of
no pictures or leaving, they *are* denying you the right to take
pictures. Saying that is no true is absurd.

>>
>>Which logically is to say that they can deny you the right to take
>>pictures.

>
>No, they can't.


You have already admitted that they can. What point is there is
saying they are not.

>>>See:
>>>
>>><http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf>
>>>or
>>><http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:aDdxT8Fhk1YJ:www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf>
>>>
>>>for more info about photographer's rights.

>>
>>Did you *read* what you cited?

>
>Yes I did. I've read it many times.


Then why not try showing where it says that. How about where I
quote what they do say, which is exactly what you say they deny:

>> "Of course, that permission can be revoked. Photographers can

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Didn't you bother to read it?

>> be asked to stop shooting or to leave, but are not at that
>> point trespassing unless they refuse to comply."

>
>They are not trespassing unless/until they refuse to comply with
>*either* leaving *or* stopping taking photos from within the property.
>Once permission has been revoked, photographers can be cited for
>trespassing, but will still be allowed to keep their photos (unless
>the photos are taken from them by force or coercion, illegally).


How clear can it be? "Permission can be revoked." In that case
it *is* revoked, and a person is *denied* any right to take
pictures.

>>Your cite refutes everything you have said. "Permission can be revoked",
>>end of debate.

>
>Permission to be on the property can be revoked, of anyone
>(photographer or not) at any time. Permission to take PHOTOS is not
>needed, and if they want you to stop taking or leave, then you have to
>do one or the other or else you can be cited for trespass. But you
>can't be cited for "taking pictures without permission" and they can't
>take your images. And if you leave and shoot from outside the
>location, there's nothing they can do.


They are denied the right to take pictures. The fact that it is
done under threat of invoking trespass laws does not change the
fact that they can legally be told "Take no pictures, or else."

>In this case, the location was a TABLE. As such, there's nothing the
>woman at the table can do if someone wants to take photos.


That is not true. She can tell them to leave her place of
business. We do not know if that will prevent photography from
public property or not.

>She can't
>make you leave her "business" because she has no business premises, at


She is paying for space. How much depends on facts we do not know
about. Whatever is her place of business, she can boot them out.

(I'd be willing to bet that in most instances such a vendor
would be able to post a sign, or verbally inform people that no
photographs are allowed *and* have that backed up by the
building security provided by the owner of the space. The table
owner simply asks security to declare the same prohibition for
the entire business area, and bingo...)

>most she can make you move a few steps away from the table which
>certainly isn't going to keep you from taking photos.


That might well be all she can do, but it is *not* "at most",
because we simply don't know what the geography is.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cjcampbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2006

Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
> Last weekend I was traveling in my car with a friend when three emergency
> vehicles passed us. A couple of minutes later we encountered the same
> vehicles at the site of an accident. An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
> off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
> camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle. There were plenty of
> first responders on hand, and I did not see any of the injured, though, from
> the looks of things there were probably some very serious injuries
> sustained. After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
> the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he initially
> thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded correctly,
> that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.
>
> My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.


Well, you are within your legal rights to take pictures. Whether that
offends grieving survivors is another matter. I am not out to offend
people.

I did come upon an accident here, though, where there was a fatality.
The driver of a rice truck (a really big truck) had lost control on wet
pavement going around a curve and struck a tricycle (motorbike with a
covered sidecar) driven by his nephew. This was during a typhoon. The
nephew cut his throat on a piece of jagged metal and died on the spot
-- right in front of the house where he had been married. Needless to
say, everyone in the huge crowd that formed was related to these
people, including the officer investigating the accident. It was
obviously very tough for him.

He told me that we could not continue down the road until the vehicles
were cleared, but that they could not move the vehicles until the
investigation, including photographs, was completed. This is the
Philippines, and the police did not have a camera and they had people
out looking for someone to lend them one. But even if they found one,
no one wanted to take the pictures because they were all related to
both the victim and the driver.

So I offered to take the pictures. The officer showed me what he wanted
done and I printed them out at my own expense and sent them to the
police department. Later, when the case went to trial, I printed out
larger copies and sent them on as well. Everyone seemed very relieved
that they did not have to take the pictures which would have been used
as evidence against a relative. It was lucky that an American
missionary with no relation to them happened to be passing through this
remote area.

But I don't think they would appreciate my posting such pictures on the
Internet for everyone to gawk at. This was a trying time for them. I
think sometimes that we photographers need to remember that we are
human beings first, and photographers second.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert A. Cunningham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2006

"cjcampbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
> Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
>> Last weekend I was traveling in my car with a friend when three emergency
>> vehicles passed us. A couple of minutes later we encountered the same
>> vehicles at the site of an accident. An SUV was on it's roof about 15
>> feet
>> off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
>> camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle. There were plenty of
>> first responders on hand, and I did not see any of the injured, though,
>> from
>> the looks of things there were probably some very serious injuries
>> sustained. After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer
>> or
>> the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he
>> initially
>> thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded
>> correctly,
>> that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.
>>
>> My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.

>
> Well, you are within your legal rights to take pictures. Whether that
> offends grieving survivors is another matter. I am not out to offend
> people.
>
> I did come upon an accident here, though, where there was a fatality.
> The driver of a rice truck (a really big truck) had lost control on wet
> pavement going around a curve and struck a tricycle (motorbike with a
> covered sidecar) driven by his nephew. This was during a typhoon. The
> nephew cut his throat on a piece of jagged metal and died on the spot
> -- right in front of the house where he had been married. Needless to
> say, everyone in the huge crowd that formed was related to these
> people, including the officer investigating the accident. It was
> obviously very tough for him.
>
> He told me that we could not continue down the road until the vehicles
> were cleared, but that they could not move the vehicles until the
> investigation, including photographs, was completed. This is the
> Philippines, and the police did not have a camera and they had people
> out looking for someone to lend them one. But even if they found one,
> no one wanted to take the pictures because they were all related to
> both the victim and the driver.
>
> So I offered to take the pictures. The officer showed me what he wanted
> done and I printed them out at my own expense and sent them to the
> police department. Later, when the case went to trial, I printed out
> larger copies and sent them on as well. Everyone seemed very relieved
> that they did not have to take the pictures which would have been used
> as evidence against a relative. It was lucky that an American
> missionary with no relation to them happened to be passing through this
> remote area.
>
> But I don't think they would appreciate my posting such pictures on the
> Internet for everyone to gawk at. This was a trying time for them. I
> think sometimes that we photographers need to remember that we are
> human beings first, and photographers second.
>

Nowhere in my original post, or any subsequent post for that matter, did I
indicate that I was going to publish any of the photos. That is not, nor was
it ever my intention to do so. Your story is totally different from mine.
You did an admirable job, above and beyond the call of duty.


 
Reply With Quote
 
cjcampbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2006

Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
> "cjcampbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


> >

> Nowhere in my original post, or any subsequent post for that matter, did I
> indicate that I was going to publish any of the photos. That is not, nor was
> it ever my intention to do so. Your story is totally different from mine.
> You did an admirable job, above and beyond the call of duty.


Oh, I am terribly sorry. I did not mean to imply that I you were going
to publish your photos. Somehow I left out a few lines describing how
that is a real fear for some people. Probably lost in editing, or else
I just forgot.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert A. Cunningham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2006

"cjcampbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
> Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
>> "cjcampbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
>> >

>> Nowhere in my original post, or any subsequent post for that matter, did
>> I
>> indicate that I was going to publish any of the photos. That is not, nor
>> was
>> it ever my intention to do so. Your story is totally different from
>> mine.
>> You did an admirable job, above and beyond the call of duty.

>
> Oh, I am terribly sorry. I did not mean to imply that you were going
> to publish your photos. Somehow I left out a few lines describing how
> that is a real fear for some people. Probably lost in editing, or else
> I just forgot.


That's ok. I recognize that concern, and I share it, to a certain extent.
A side note: when I started the original post, I was a little concerned that
the discussion would degenerate into an insulting match, as so many topics
do. I was pleasantly surprised that this topic maintained a relatively high
level of courtesy and decency (albeit, with a vew minor exceptions)
regarding the various viewpoints expressed on the subject. I really learned
a lot, and am grateful for the participation of everyone who posted his/her
views. Thanks to all of you.
Robert A. Cunningham
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C ethics question Servé Laurijssen C Programming 9 03-31-2007 06:19 PM
Jon Harrop's strange ethics (was Ray tracer) alex.gman@gmail.com Java 0 08-08-2005 09:33 AM
Ethics Doom MCSE 14 07-29-2004 06:28 PM
Ethics (Photography versus life or death, film or digital) Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 5 02-13-2004 04:01 PM
ethics of braindumps, read this! roYal MCSE 0 09-08-2003 09:07 PM



Advertisments