Pixiq

She didn't seem to mind the cameras when she took these posed pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069002/Art-Basel-2011-Muri-Kims...

Listen to the first 5 seconds of the video

An owner of private property has an absolute right to prohibit photography on his property, and to have anyone who defies that prohibition removed. If the photographer won't desist or leave then he can be arrested. Private property rights are not forfeited because the property is used for commercial purposes.

Because he has no obligation to. He is not the one with the complaint. If the woman has a problem, she should make her exhibit private and block it from public view, or speak to the property owner and have her exhibit officially off limits to photography. She cannot do what she is currently doing and use private security to control an area she has no rights to.

so he got charged with crap, what are you saying? NICMART-your nothing but a troller! so keep on trolling! your kind and type is what is the major problem with this world! your a total waste of everything, time and space, and the air you breath! your kind is a dime a DOZ., your the person that listens to RUSH and when he finishes with his CRAP, your type go AMEN!
[in few years when your BALLS drop, come back then!]

So if police suddenly kick in your door to charge you with treason and stealing the golden gate bridge, there's no need for a trial, because a simple accusation is all the proof needed?

If the worst thing you can say about a man is that he's been accused of something, then you really need to re-evaluate your argument.

Nicmart, you are a wholly ignorant person. Chris Lagergren may or may not be part of the animal Liberation Front but as far as I could see he certainly wasn't behaving in a violent way on the film I watched. If a conceptual artist is going to put on controversial works of art then they must expect a reaction, isn't that the point? The worst thing that could happen for an artist is for them to be overlooked.

What on earth are you on about when you say that 'it is a disgrace to associate photographic freedom with this cause' You are a pompous oaf. It is the DUTY of a photographer to push the boundaries and record what he sees fit. Not sit back and do nothing! Why should anyone respect private property if they believe that there is an event taking place which involves non consenting animals?
By the way can you define violence for me?

Thank you for the laugh Mike the troll.

Your inane opinion has illustrated your complete lack of all knowledge regarding your 1st Amendment Right. And the Constitution of this country. The same Constitution that allows you the freedom to expose your ignorance on a public blog to the world.

Ironic and sad. Which I am sure mirrors your very existence.

No one ever needed an inviolable right to do what everybody likes.

That last sentence doesn't make sense. How can half the people be below the level of the majority?

Jersey Shore, need I say more?

It reminds me of that all too common situation here in NYC where women get dressed up like whores then get offended when you look at them!

Digital Dave says:

"You do realize that posting a picture of a person online or in the public domain without a model release form can get you sued right?

I mean if she comes online and hunts down her own pic she can rightly get compensation."

DDave. With all due respect. Time to ask for a refund from your Interwebs School of Law.

How many times have you been sued so far?

Can you cite a case to support your erroneous claim?

Has Carlos sold the "artist's" image without cutting her in on the massive profits?

What you are saying is that every picture of every person on the web is illegal? Except the pics of models w/releases? Every pic on Facebook has been vetted and model releases have been signed and filed? Everyone in the background of every graduation pic has signed a model release? Birthday party pics? Car shows?

Everyone in the pic has signed a release?

Correct. No model release is required unless the image is going to be used for commercial purposes. Posting it here doesn't qualify.

What a douche bag. For a so called "expert" who gets paid for his blog you'd think the breadth of his knowledge would be a little more extensive. Posted the following on his page...

"You wouldn't expect to be able to take photos in most museums, for example."

Really Haje? You mean places like say, the Boston Museum of fine arts? Oh, that's right, they actually do allow photography there. How about say, the Smithsonian, I bet no photography allowed there right Haje? Oopppsie
From: http://americanart.si.edu/reynolds_center/faq.cfm#faq_10
"Handheld photography and video for personal use are permitted in the permanent collection galleries, and in the Luce Foundation Center, but not in special exhibitions or in the Lunder Conservation Center. No tripods are allowed. Commercial use must be pre-arranged with the museums' Public Affairs Offices."

Lets go to NYC's Metropolitan Museum of Art!! Bet they don't allow any photog riff raff there right Haje. Ohhhh, so sorry, WRONG AGAIN!
http://www.metmuseum.org/visit/plan-your-visit/visitor-tips-and-policies
"Still photography is permitted for private, noncommercial use only in the Museum's galleries devoted to the permanent collection. Photographs cannot be published, sold, reproduced, transferred, distributed, or otherwise commercially exploited in any manner whatsoever. Photography is not permitted in special exhibitions or areas designated as "No Photography"; works of art on loan from private collections or other institutions may not be photographed."

So the general rule of thumb is no flash, tripods, of photographing special exhibitions, as the museum does not own those, but YES you CAN photograph the main exhibit. Sorry again Haje, I don't have the time to check on EVERY museum, but I would say three of the most famous U.S. museums are pretty good examples. Maybe your home towns local Museum doesn't allow photography, too bad 4 U Haje.

"If we're talking first amendment rights, most of us don't graffiti walls, we don't use bullhorns at 4am in the morning, and we don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre."

Most of us don't take a diarrhea shit on a public street either, what the fuck does ANY of that have to do with exercising ones LEGAL 1st amendment right to take photographs in public? The examples you provided are all of illegal activities, the last potentially causing great harm to many people by the utterance of a malicious lie.
So just how is a photographer causing deaths? I would argue that by photographing police and ignoring their orders to stop, you could be SAVING someone from harm, or at the very least preventing the officers from LYING about the incident later. But you wouldn't know about that would you Haje, unlike mean old Carlos and the Copblock boyz you just slink away out of "respect" when police tell you to stop taking photos, don't you.

"To put it differently: I'm a photographer. A passionate one. But if you are the photographer who causes a huge brouhaha by deciding to take photos at an event or a location where you've been asked not to, I will think less of you. Why? Because you're making all of us look bad."

Oooooo, you will think less of me, so sad I would have cried if I didn't already hold you in the utmost contempt.

GUY: most women would say, if any us men would do that, we wouldnt be human.