Don't leave home without it!

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

jerk151 said:
Well, I do have a question about the OP and the "letter to be carried". I understand the right to take those pictures, but what happens then? Is it legal to post them on the internet, print them for a exhibit, print for sale, print for distribution of a story in a magazine? Is the person/people in the photo entitled to a percentage of any profits made from an image in which they are the subject? I know back when I used to do quite a bit of film/video production, while in a public place we had to post signs telling passersby that they were entering an area where they may be recorded. Any clear shots, interviews, etc.... needed a release signed.

You can shoot (almost) anything you can see from a public vantage point. That does not automatically mean you can use what you shot in anyway you see fit. To my knowledge most restrictions revolve around commercial use and existing ownership. To use people in an advert you'll need a signed release. You would also need permission to use an image that has a logo or privatley owned and recognizable place in an ad. If your use is self expression (art) or editorial you are mostly in the clear. The lawyers on APUG would be able to give you a better accounting.

I use the ASMP (http://www.asmp.org to get access to their goods you may need to be a member ) as my information source regarding images that I use for commercial stuff and for art I simply assume that anything goes (ignorance maintains my bliss).

JBrunner · Jul 14, 2009

"In private spacing, notwithstanding express consent by the property owner, the act cannot legally proceed under protection of law, no matter how "public" the space is perceived to be."

In the US you do not need the express consent of the property owner in private areas that are open to the public. It is up to the property owner to post or otherwise specifically inform persons of any prohibitions they wish to enforce upon their property, such as no smoking, no skateboarding, no Catholic masses, no photography, etc. I have never seen a "no photography" sign, although there probably is one someplace.

When it does occur, it usually comes in the form of a mouth breather security guard who says, "You can't take pitchurs here."
When you move to the sidewalk (clearly public) he will usually follow you and tell you "You can't take pitchurs out here nither, you can't take pictures where our property is a showin."

You continue and he calls the cops, who then show up, ask you a few questions, and turn on the uniformed village idiot with the plastic badge and give him a good work out for being a moron. I have acted my part in this scenario several times.

2F/2F · Jul 14, 2009

I am talking about public-view spaces on private property, not your story. The story IMO has nothing to do with anything in this post, as the post concerns shooting in the public view in the United States, not in private in Canada. Applying the rules for one to the other is an exercise in nonsense. You seem to keep denying that these private-property-but-public-view spaces exist here in the U.S.A. They do exist. Have you read the PDF in the OP? It says as much.

As for the panhandling example and how it applies here, I guess I just find it problematic and difficult to comprehend because it is.

...and I still don't know what the whole point is. It seems like an off-topic, rambling, self-interested thread hijack for the sake of Internet drama to me.

jamusu · Jul 14, 2009

Accozzaglia.

Once again you refuse to answer my question. I will ask it a bit differently this time.

How can you whine about your privacy being invaded when your FLICKR portfolio that is listed here on APUG clearly shows photos where you took photographs of people without asking permission? Why the double standard? Why be so hypocritical?

I know why you won't answer. It is because you have been BUSTED!
Jamusu

accozzaglia · Jul 14, 2009

2F/2F said:
I am talking about public-view spaces on private property, not your story. The story IMO has nothing to do with anything in this post, as the post concerns shooting in the public view in the United States, not in private in Canada. Applying the rules for one to the other is an exercise in nonsense. You seem to keep denying that these private-property-but-public-view spaces exist here in the U.S.A. They do exist. Have you read the PDF in the OP? It says as much.

Before posting last night, I did browse through the document and quickly realized that it was inapplicable here in Canada. Some early commenters asked about similar documents for other nations, so I thought the thread was a discussion on public-private spacing rights, writ large not just about the U.S. (although in hindsight, perhaps it makes more sense to assume that locational-based discussion on APUG concerns only the U.S. unless otherwise specified). I did skip a few pages after that, and wasn't really aware until much later that the discussion had undergone a few heated moments. When I stepped in, tempers were already warm and my input only worsened it. That's when I re-read the entire thread.

As for the panhandling example and how it applies here, I guess I just find it problematic and difficult to comprehend because it is.

Yes, we really were talking about different matters. That's why it sounded absurd to you and others.

...and I still don't know what the whole point is. It seems like an off-topic, rambling, self-interested thread hijack for the sake of Internet drama to me.

If I had known it would have devolved into this, I would have stuck to other areas on APUG where matters are far less controversial and tempers a lot cooler. As it was, I think this was the first time I ever commented in the Ethics and Philosophy section.

accozzaglia · Jul 14, 2009

jamusu said:
I know why you won't answer. It is because you have been BUSTED!
Jamusu

Yeah, you're right: I was "busted" when puberty hit my body.

Beyond that, it seems impossible to even communicate with you. Pick out any photo I shot that you think came without consent in a private space, and I will gladly give you the background. And preferably, not to waste any more space on this thread, do it in a private message, please. Otherwise, I don't think I have anything further to say to you.

2F/2F · Jul 14, 2009

Nobody is suggesting that the conversation should only involve U.S. law and experiences. What somebody is suggesting is that Canadian law covering private spaces should not be used to form assumptions on what U.S.A. law covering public spaces is...especially assumptions that you then go on to stubbornly argue despite the facts. I don't hear anyone arguing that U.S.A. law covering public spaces can be used to state what Canadian law covering private spaces is...so I am really lost on the point, here.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

2F/2F said:
...and I still don't know what the whole point is. It seems like an off-topic, rambling, self-interested thread hijack for the sake of Internet drama to me.

Ditto

jamusu · Jul 14, 2009

accozzaglia said:
Yeah, you're right: I was "busted" when puberty hit my body.

Beyond that, it seems impossible to even communicate with you. Pick out any photo I shot that you think came without consent in a private space, and I will gladly give you the background. And preferably, not to waste any more space on this thread, do it in a private message, please. Otherwise, I don't think I have anything further to say to you.

_________________________________________________________________

Why do you want me to PM you? Do I sense a guilty concience? Are you afraid that other APUGER'S are going to view your portfolio as well a come to the same conclusion that I have?

By your own pictures you were BUSTED. Now as a result you seem a bit DISGUSTED. Be not angry at me but rather yourself for posting images that you yourself took and posted that conflict with what you have written. Now are you going to answer my question or what? Or are you too BUSTED and DISGUSTED!

Jamusu.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

In an effort to save this thread tomorrow I will go through and delete the chaf (including my own posts) if tomorrow the thread has no new off topic arguments.

Thomas Wilson · Jul 14, 2009

jd callow said:
In an effort to save this thread tomorrow I will go through and delete the chaf (including my own posts) if tomorrow the thread has no new off topic arguments.

Why not leave (the entire thread) as it was written?
Is the chaf, as you describe it, not worthy of review by future readers? I think the chaf speaks more clearly of the posters' character and demeanor than the sanitized, neutered version that will be left.

How are future readers to put in context the comments that will remain?
Clearly, many uncensored posts to the thread will be taken "Out of context," for little, if any, truly telling context will remain.
It is clear to me that as a Moderator to this forum, you should lead by example, and not enjoy the ability to claim "Mulligan," or "Never mind" in 20/20 hindsight.

Clearly, you and I have opposing standards of photography, and moderation.

I stand by my words.

MattKing · Jul 15, 2009

I think accozzaglia's original post does ad to this thread, at least in relation to that part of the discussion that relates to how best to deal with someone who prefers not to be photographed at the particular time in question.

In this thread, her post is the only one that comes from a viewpoint in front of the camera. All the rest come from the other side.

Maybe she is the only one here who would have found the approach of the other picture taker at her friend's party irritating. I don't think that matters, because if she found his approach irritating, he should have abided by her wishes because he wasn't at a concert, he was at a birthday party.

I've done a fair amount of photography in social settings, and I think that it is both easy, and difficult. It is easy because people expect to see cameras, but it is difficult because you can really screw up the party if you aren't sensitive to the wishes of the others there.

Whether or not a photographer is entitled to take photos, he or she shouldn't do so in a way that will ruin the party for one or more of the guests! And the photographer cannot assume that what doesn't bother him or her, doesn't bother others.

I see nothing wrong or illogical about having differing standards for how to deal with the wishes of others in private places/functions vs. public places/functions. In private, it is reasonable to have a greater say in whether or not or how we are photographed.

All of which leads to the question of what constitutes "private" and what constitutes "public", which of course certainly is part of how this thread has meandered.

And with respect to accozzaglia's flickr portfolio - so what? I didn't see any irritated party-goers there. So she has shot some street scenes, some of which aren't necessarily flattering. What has that got to do with the scenario she originally described?

At least she didn't suggest shooting anyone.

Matt

jd callow · Jul 15, 2009

Thomas Wilson said:
Why not leave (the entire thread) as it was written?
Is the chaf, as you describe it, not worthy of review by future readers? I think the chaf speaks more clearly of the posters' character and demeanor than the sanitized, neutered version that will be left.

How are future readers to put in context the comments that will remain?
Clearly, many uncensored posts to the thread will be taken "Out of context," for little, if any, truly telling context will remain.
It is clear to me that as a Moderator to this forum, you should lead by example, and not enjoy the ability to claim "Mulligan," or "Never mind" in 20/20 hindsight.

Clearly, you and I have opposing standards of photography, and moderation.

I stand by my words.

Thomas,
Until I look through the thread I can't say even if I can edit out the junk, but i agree that the context is important. I never claim a mulligan and have no desire to rewrite the record. My intent would be to remove OT post and arguments that add nothing to the topic. Culling a thread is something we hardly ever do. 1) because people seem to think deleting a thread in whole is less an act of censorship than trying to salvage one by removing the arguments; 2) it is a pain in the backside; and 3) the greif wrought by both is seldom worth the effort.

jamusu · Jul 15, 2009

And with respect to accozzaglia's flickr portfolio - so what? I didn't see any irritated party-goers there. So she has shot some street scenes, some of which aren't necessarily flattering. What has that got to do with the scenario she originally described?

At least she didn't suggest shooting anyone.

Matt[/QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matt.

Accozzaglia's FLICKR photostream has everything to do with the scenario she described. Her main point was not being photographed without permission by that photographer, but her photostream clearly shows her doing that very thing to others.

Have you read all of her post's. Whenenver she is cornered by someone, she attempts to change the subject. In my case she refused to answer the question totally because she knew that she had been exposed.

Jamusu.

accozzaglia · Jul 15, 2009

MattKing said:
And with respect to accozzaglia's flickr portfolio - so what? I didn't see any irritated party-goers there. So she has shot some street scenes, some of which aren't necessarily flattering. What has that got to do with the scenario she originally described?

At least she didn't suggest shooting anyone.

Matt

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matt.

jamusu said:
Accozzaglia's FLICKR photostream has everything to do with the scenario she described. Her main point was not being photographed without permission by that photographer, but her photostream clearly shows her doing that very thing to others.

Have you read all of her post's. Whenenver she is cornered by someone, she attempts to change the subject. In my case she refused to answer the question totally because she knew that she had been exposed.

Jamusu.

Jamusu, here's an idea: why not actually factor the qualifier I have used consistently in this discussion that you, every single time, have excluded (and rather aggressively so): without permission in a private space. And let's get even more incisive: in Canada.

In public? That's another matter, and if you'd like to actually read through what I have already written, word for word, you'll have observed that my quarrel was never with photos in public space. Rather, I seem to recall this thread began with Domenico's experience in a public space. My mistake was having unintentionally derailed the public space issue in the U.S. with a circumstance arising in a Canadian private space and then engaging in a debate about the meaning of private spacing in a contemporary, academic context. And for that, I'm sorry for the distraction, all.

But my bigger mistake was to engage an illiterate child who sounds like a broken record stuck on a groove called "BUSTED" and unable to conduct themselves in an intelligent manner. Give me a bloody break. Grow up, learn to read, and learn to think. If you can't or won't, then sucks to be you.

[n.b., The following was over the line, and I've set him away on ignore. Sorry all.]

[btw Jamusu, I ran through your few shots on flickr: all digitally made — a Nikon D60? c'mon, you can do so much better — and not very inspiring shots of Nickelsville, either. Did daddy buy you your digital toy? If so, then why in heavens are you trolling Analogue Photography Users Group, anyway?]

Dinesh · Jul 15, 2009

accozzaglia said:
Oh wait. I just ate the troll bait. Ew.

That is why they call it "troll bait".

jamusu · Jul 15, 2009

accozzaglia said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matt.

Jamusu, here's an idea: why not actually factor the qualifier I have used consistently in this discussion that you, every single time, have excluded (and rather aggressively so): without permission in a private space. And let's get even more incisive: in Canada.

In public? That's another matter, and if you'd like to actually read through what I have already written, word for word, you'll have observed that my quarrel was never with photos in public space. Rather, I seem to recall this thread began with Domenico's experience in a public space. My mistake was having unintentionally derailed the public space issue in the U.S. with a circumstance arising in a Canadian private space and then engaging in a debate about the meaning of private spacing in a contemporary, academic context. And for that, I'm sorry for the distraction, all.

But my bigger mistake was to engage an illiterate child who sounds like a broken record stuck on a groove called "BUSTED" and unable to conduct themselves in an intelligent manner. Give me a bloody break. Grow up, learn to read, and learn to think. If you can't or won't, then sucks to be you.

[n.b., The following was over the line, and I've set him away on ignore. Sorry all.]

[btw Jamusu, I ran through your few shots on flickr: all digitally made — a Nikon D60? c'mon, you can do so much better — and not very inspiring shots of Nickelsville, either. Did daddy buy you your digital toy? If so, then why in heavens are you trolling Analogue Photography Users Group, anyway?]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Trolling? Huh? I have been a suscriber since 2006 and once again, you are attempting to change the subject as I stated earlier like you have constantly done when exposed. Go ahead divert the attention to me in your shame if it makes you feel better.

Second you are not ignoring me, you are running away from the truth which is you are not telling the truth. Your FLICKR portfolio clearly shows that you took those photos without first asking permission. To make matters worse, you have resorted to personal attacks and insults. And for the record, you did not run through my FLICKR portfolio because I do not have any photos uploaded on FLICKR. Do you think I am the only person with the handle Jamusu? You are beginning to sound a bit desperate.

As stated earlier, it seems to me that you had more of a problem with the fact that the guy was shooting digital instead of film of which you denied, but once again you have contradicted yourself afterwards by insulting the Jamusu on FLICKR because she or he used a digital camera to take their photos just as you insulted the guy at the party for using a digital camera. Double BUSTED!

Stop while you are ahead. The more you talk, the more you self incriminate yourself.

Jamusu.

Andy K · Jul 15, 2009

accozzaglia said:
[btw Jamusu, I ran through your few shots on flickr: all digitally made — a Nikon D60? c'mon, you can do so much better — and not very inspiring shots of Nickelsville, either. Did daddy buy you your digital toy? If so, then why in heavens are you trolling Analogue Photography Users Group, anyway?]

When all else fails insult the person's photography. That is one of the more detestable forms of attack on photographic forums.

Since when did the amount of photographs a person uploads to the web make them a better photographer? I would rather see a few good photographs than hundreds of bad photographs.

jamusu · Jul 15, 2009

Andy K said:
When all else fails insult the person's photography. That is one of the more detestable forms of attack on photographic forums.

Since when did the amount of photographs a person uploads to the web make them a better photographer? I would rather see a few good photographs than hundreds of bad photographs.

___________________________________________________________________
Andy.

To make matters worse, I am not the Jamusu she is talking about. I do not have any uploads on FLICKR. I feel sorry for the persons photography she just insulted. I think she needs to send her or him an apology.

Jamusu.

VaryaV · Jul 15, 2009

Andy K said:
When all else fails insult the person's photography. That is one of the more detestable forms of attack on photographic forums.

Since when did the amount of photographs a person uploads to the web make them a better photographer? I would rather see a few good photographs than hundreds of bad photographs.

Ouch!

accozzaglia · Jul 15, 2009

Andy K said:
When all else fails insult the person's photography.

I didn't realize that mocking digital equipment on APUG was a failing.

There is an upside to this: I actually looked at his images, which is far more than what he was unable to demonstrate when he couldn't even reference my own to effect his facile argument.

And hey, I'll save you the trouble, Andy: I know my work isn't much to write home about, but I enjoy doing it, and that's what really matters to me. And in private spacing, I always ask first!

jamusu · Jul 15, 2009

accozzaglia said:
I didn't realize that mocking digital equipment on APUG was a failing.

There is an upside to this: I actually looked at his images, which is far more than what he was unable to demonstrate when he couldn't even reference my own to effect his facile argument.

And hey, I'll save you the trouble, Andy: I know my work isn't much to write home about, but I enjoy doing it, and that's what really matters to me. And in private spacing, I always ask first!

___________________________________________________________________

This is rather funny considering that I am not the Jamusu on FLICKR she keeps insulting. So that she stops embarrassing herself in her failed attempts to insult work that is not mine, will someone please inform Accozzaglia that the Jamusu's work that she is insulting is not mine since she has chosen to in her shame ignore my posts instead of answering the question.

Hillarious.

Jamusu.

JMC1969 · Jul 15, 2009

jamusu said:
___________________________________________________________________

This is rather funny considering that I am not the Jamusu on FLICKR she keeps insulting. So that she stops embarrassing herself in her failed attempts to insult work that is not mine, will someone please inform Accozzaglia that the Jamusu's work that she is insulting is not mine since she has chosen to in her shame ignore my posts instead of answering the question? Hillarious.

Jamusu.

Request granted.

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 15, 2009

Why don't we all cut out the mocking part and stick to meaningful critique, when solicited. Slagging off on other members just to score argument points is so third grade, and we're all (or 99.5% of us anyway) adults here.

Domenico Foschi · Jul 15, 2009

If the OP would know how the thread devolved he would turn in his grave.......:confused:

Don't leave home without it!

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency