«

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Ken Davey" <> writes:
>> Ethics is not about rights.
>
> Yes, that is what I said, there is more to ethics than identifying or
> exercising one's rights.
>
>> You are confusing ethics with 'rights' which are granted to those
>> within society that acept ethical standards.
>
> No that's incorrect, rights are inherent in everybody, whether they
> are ethical or not. Some people generalize from that to think that
> anything within their rights must automatically be ethical. They
> are missing part of the picture.

WRONG!
There is nothing inherent about rights.

Ken.
--
Volunteer your idle computer time for cancer research
http://www.grid.org/services/teams/t...9-D37D5B25B569

My return address is courtesy of Spammotel http://www.spammotel.com/

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:55:17 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>There are, as has been noted, limitation on what you can do with
>the images.

I can't think of any legal limitations on what he can do with images
of a car crash, especially since his images don't show any of the
victims. It's news, and by being news, editorial use is permitted.
Once editorial (news) use is permitted, then following commercial use
(e.g. licensing the image for reprinting in a book or ad) can also be
permitted especially since there isn't any "right to privacy" from the
publication of newsworthy images, especially images that don't show an
individual. You don't need permission from the owner of a tree to
take a photo of that tree and put it in a book or sell it as art - I
don't think you need permission from the owner of a wrecked vehicle to
do something similar with a photo of the wreck.

The *only* possible exception I can think of here is if a license
plate is visible in a photo - there might be some "right to privacy"
to the owner of that vehicle.

If I'm wrong, I'd love some citations as to how I'm wrong. Note that
I'm assuming US copyright law applies since the photos were taken in
the US.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

JC Dill <> writes:
> I can't think of any legal limitations on what

The OP's question wasn't about legal limitations. Why are so many
posters acting as if it was?

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:58:56 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>"Pea C" <> wrote:
>>Do you think the police is authorized to order me to submit pictures
>>taken by me for the purposes of investigation? They have their own paid
>>experienced photographers, don't they? The pictures are my property.
>
>The police are not so authorized, but the court is. So yes, it
>they know who you are they could indeed get a court order and
>force you to produce them.

You might also have an opportunity to sell your photos to either party
in the wreck, or to their insurance agencies. I know a guy who takes
accident and fire photos and sells them to the newspaper - he often
also sells them to the victims or insurance agencies. I don't know
the details of how he contacts them or what he gets paid.

He also sells prints to the rescue personel.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
> (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
>> Fine, except nothing in this thread has been about any actual
>> abuse of free speech, or any other right. The only abuse was
>> some bully trying to intimidate a photographer.
>
>The photographer himself did not feel that the situation was so clear.

So?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

JC Dill <> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:37:09 -0700, "Robert A. Cunningham"
><> wrote:
>
>> I was over 200 miles from
>>home, and any diversion would have really inconvenient for me at that time,
>>but you are totally correct.
>
>In that case, you chose to stop shooting because the possible
>consequences of continuing to shoot were not in your favor. That's
>not the same as being *made* to stop shooting. LEOs like to tell
>people "you can't do that" when the law gives them no basis for making
>that statement. Letting them get away with it tends to just lead to
>more of the same.

To be honest, I would expect the result of photographing the guy
would have been that the tables would turn and *he* would have
been intimidated! It's one thing to talk tough and tell someone
what they can and cannot do, but at an accident scene there
*are* real LEOs, and the last thing anyone like that person
would want to do is actually physically assault someone with the
police watching. And the attempt at intimidation as it was
appeared to have come very close to being an assault. You would
be *amazed* at how observant police officers can be at an
accident scene! It's a place where they have a chance to "make
contact" with a whole group of people without having anything
"suspicious" to use as an excuse...

Also, the idea that someone involved in the accident would be
ordering a photographer to cease is fairly far fetched. Very
few people involved in accidents are able to think straight, and
few would have the where-with-all to be concerned about
something like photographs. The exception to that is if someone
is a police officer or an ambulance squad member; in which case
they very likely would be familiar enough with accident scenes
to maintain presence of mind. Of course that also means they
would not be likely to bother a photographer that is not
interfering with others.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
> >The photographer himself did not feel that the situation was so clear.
> So?

If someone walks up to you in the street and starts taking your
picture, and doesn't stop if you ask him to, what (if anything) do you
do next?

JC Dill <> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:55:17 -0800, (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>There are, as has been noted, limitation on what you can do with
>>the images.
>
>I can't think of any legal limitations on what he can do with images

He did *not* say there were no pictures of people. Just that none of
them were the victims. He cannot publish a book, for example, using
pictures of those people, unless he gets a release.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:15:32 -0700, "Ken Davey"
<> wrote:

>Paul Rubin wrote:
>> "Ken Davey" <> writes:
>>> Ethics is not about rights.
>>
>> Yes, that is what I said, there is more to ethics than identifying or
>> exercising one's rights.
>>
>>> You are confusing ethics with 'rights' which are granted to those
>>> within society that acept ethical standards.
>>
>> No that's incorrect, rights are inherent in everybody, whether they
>> are ethical or not. Some people generalize from that to think that
>> anything within their rights must automatically be ethical. They
>> are missing part of the picture.
>
>WRONG!
>There is nothing inherent about rights.
>
>Ken.

You're putting yourself out on a long, thin limb with that.
You have no inherent right to life?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On 22 Oct 2006 04:36:24 +0200, JC Dill <> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:03:41 GMT, Ken Weitzel <>
>wrote:
>
>>I can't help asking...
>>
>>What ever happened to "the golden rule"?
>
>What if one of the victims was actually OK following the crash, and
>then due to negligence by the first responders the victim was injured?
>A photographer at the scene might document evidence that would help
>the victim win a lawsuit for injuries caused by negligence.

Most states have enacted "Good Samaritan" laws to protect first
responders from such suits. The negligence would need to be egregious
to be actionable.
>
>Also, in any wreck there is usually one party that is "more to blame"
>than the other. Photos help document what happened before the cops
>and fire department start moving things around to help the victims,
>and those photos can sometimes be very useful to the party who wasn't
>to blame for the accident.

True.
>
>jc
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"