«

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:19 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

>On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
>> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
>> automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
>> example.
>>
>> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
>>
>Just out of curiousity Richard, when you "test" various cameras and
>lenses at the local Henry's store, or their photo show. Do you have
>permission and releases to post the other customers and staff members to
>the Internet? Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.

Not if it's artistic or editorial use.

On 09/07/2011 11:40 PM, John A. wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:16:04 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>>>
>> I can imagine years of civil litigation, as all his "subjects" didn't
>> sign releases, so each has a right to sue his ass to the stone ages...
>
> They wouldn't need to sign releases if it were artistic use.

Why not? How is his "artistic use" any different than me shooting in my
studio? Those subject in my studio have actually agreed to being
photographed.
>
> If he had been honest with Apple about his plans and they had agreed
> to allow it as part of an ad campaign ("these are real people's
> reactions to the new Apple Whatzit"), then they would need to have
> releases since that would be commercial use.
>
> Or that's as I understand it, anyway.
>
Pretty well any photo taken for any form of publication should have a
release.

Mike

On 09/07/2011 11:42 PM, John A. wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:19 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
>>> automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
>>> example.
>>>
>>> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
>>>
>> Just out of curiousity Richard, when you "test" various cameras and
>> lenses at the local Henry's store, or their photo show. Do you have
>> permission and releases to post the other customers and staff members to
>> the Internet? Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.
>
> Not if it's artistic or editorial use.
>
Why? Henry's is private property, legally people that enter private
property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it was at a parade
down Yonge Street, it would be a public place.

Mike.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:20:08 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

>On 09/07/2011 11:40 PM, John A. wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:16:04 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I can imagine years of civil litigation, as all his "subjects" didn't
>>> sign releases, so each has a right to sue his ass to the stone ages...
>>
>> They wouldn't need to sign releases if it were artistic use.
>
>Why not? How is his "artistic use" any different than me shooting in my
>studio? Those subject in my studio have actually agreed to being
>photographed.

It's not where the shot was taken, but what was done with the shot.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:23:03 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

>On 09/07/2011 11:42 PM, John A. wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:19 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
>>>> automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
>>>>
>>> Just out of curiousity Richard, when you "test" various cameras and
>>> lenses at the local Henry's store, or their photo show. Do you have
>>> permission and releases to post the other customers and staff members to
>>> the Internet? Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.
>>
>> Not if it's artistic or editorial use.
> >
>Why? Henry's is private property, legally people that enter private
>property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it was at a parade
>down Yonge Street, it would be a public place.

Maybe it's different there, but when I go out to a store I consider
myself to be out in public.

In article <ivb9eu$q1u$>, Mike <>
wrote:

> Why? Henry's is private property, legally people that enter private
> property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it was at a parade
> down Yonge Street, it would be a public place.

it may be private property but it's open to the public. there is no
expectation of privacy in a store, other than in the bathroom or
dressing room if it's a clothing store.

On Jul 9, 11:42*pm, John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:19 -0400, Mike <n...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
> >> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
> >> automatically. *That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
> >> example.
>
> >> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
>
> >Just out of curiousity Richard, when you "test" various cameras and
> >lenses at the local Henry's store, or their photo show. Do you have
> >permission and releases to post the other customers and staff members to
> >the Internet? Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.
>
> Not if it's artistic or editorial use.

Just goes to show, there are plenty of people who'd like to deprive us
of our rights to take pictures of anything, or anybody they don't want
pictures of.

On Jul 10, 12:23*am, Mike <n...@none.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 11:42 PM, John A. wrote:> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:19 -0400, Mike<n...@none.invalid> *wrote:
>
> >> On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
> >>> automatically. *That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
> >>> example.
>
> >>> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
>
> >> Just out of curiousity Richard, when you "test" various cameras and
> >> lenses at the local Henry's store, or their photo show. Do you have
> >> permission and releases to post the other customers and staff members to
> >> the Internet? Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.
>
> > Not if it's artistic or editorial use.
>
> *>
> Why? Henry's is private property, legally people that enter private
> property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it was at a parade
> down Yonge Street, it would be a public place.
>
> Mike.

You're talking nonsense. From a practical standpoint, tens of
THOUSANDS of shots get taken at Henry's stores. There are many
private property venues where photography is expressly permitted.
Like the Eaton Centre.

On 10/07/2011 1:32 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:20:08 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2011 11:40 PM, John A. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:16:04 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I can imagine years of civil litigation, as all his "subjects" didn't
>>>> sign releases, so each has a right to sue his ass to the stone ages...
>>>
>>> They wouldn't need to sign releases if it were artistic use.
>>
>> Why not? How is his "artistic use" any different than me shooting in my
>> studio? Those subject in my studio have actually agreed to being
>> photographed.
>
> It's not where the shot was taken, but what was done with the shot.
>
I think the issue of consent is what the Courts would decide on. Plus
public place versus private property.

Mike

On 10/07/2011 1:53 AM, John A. wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:23:03 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2011 11:42 PM, John A. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:53:19 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
>>>>> automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
>>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiousity Richard, when you "test" various cameras and
>>>> lenses at the local Henry's store, or their photo show. Do you have
>>>> permission and releases to post the other customers and staff members to
>>>> the Internet? Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.
>>>
>>> Not if it's artistic or editorial use.
>>>
>> Why? Henry's is private property, legally people that enter private
>> property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it was at a parade
>> down Yonge Street, it would be a public place.
>
> Maybe it's different there, but when I go out to a store I consider
> myself to be out in public.
>
No Stores, malls etc are in law "private property" you are invited in as
a customer. This is why he had to ask permission, however he lied about
taking pictures. His intent was to install a remote app.