Pixiq

[...] Go to the author’s original blog: Photographer alleges Denver PD violated his First Amendment rights [...]

[...] Read More… [...]

Wouldn’t taking pictures (with flashes) disrupt the other photographers work? With all due respect to his rights, they were working on a time table because they had contracted the city to close the street for the shoot. If taking pictures and providing counter-flashes to the other photographer’s setting impedes the work, I would think that would be grounds for police involvement.

Maz,

If you look at the photos, it shows he was standing so far away that even if he did use a flash, it wouldn’t interfere.

And it is obvious he did not have a high-powered lens.

And from the looks of his Flickr account, it doesn’t appear that he is a frequent photographer.

Of course he may have an account under a different name.

The bottom line is it’s pretty obvious he was just a gawker and there is no law against that.

It seems the photo crew wasted more time trying to chase him away than it was worth.

I’m not even an amateur photographer, so I have no idea how flashes, exposure, etc work beyond their purpose… If you say that what he was doing would not have affected the quality of their work, then I’ll have to take your word for it.

This photog was an ass and deserved to be treated like an ass. He wanted to take pictures just because someone asked him not to. He had no interest in taking pictures…other than to irritate the folks that didn’t want him taking them. He should have gotten beat upside the head with a nightstick – stupid retard!

Dean, being an ass isn’t against the law. Thankfully.

Ringo Kamens aka Alex D. Bryan, XXXX YYYYYY ZZZ, Centennial, Colorado, does not understand commercial rights associated with this kind of shoot, including the money invested into the project. If he wanted to make a political statement, the commercial forum isn’t the place to do it. Learn the law, dude.

“does not understand commercial rights associated with this kind of shoot”

What ARE the commercial rights of a vehicle photographed from a public area?

And shouldn’t such rights govern the USE of photos, not the TAKING of photos?

“What ARE the commercial rights of a vehicle photographed from a public area?”

Look it up yourself, dude, and don’t forget to include all the important details such as permits obtained and security installed as it pertains to the area being legally considered “public” while the photo shoot was going on.

Anybody wanting to push the envelope should know the relevant law before they push. If you don’t know the law, you open yourself up 1) to be unjustly pushed around by bullying by officials who don’t know what they are talking about, and/or 2) opening yourself up for civil and criminal liability for pushing the wrong way, in the wrong place, etc.

It cuts both ways, and the only way to protect yourself is to know the relevant law before you act.

“Look it up yourself…”

OK, let me rephrase that. I assert that it is completely legal to take photographs from public property of a private vehicle, regardless of whether the private vehicle is involved in a commercial shoot and regardless of how much money was invested in the project.

” I assert that it is completely legal , , ,”
Well, then, by all means, do so. In fact, I urge you to take the photos and dare to publish them and, please, since this is not an academic discussion, have the courage of your convictions to advise the company whose photo shoot you usurped that you are doing so. Let me know what happens.

Photog:
Since you are asserting that there is a law against taking pictures FROM public property please cite the relevant statute. You can’t because there isn’t any! As long as the photographer was standing on PUBLIC property he/she can take a picture OF anything that can be seen from that vantage point. Since the photographer was not standing inside the perimeter of the area the film crew had cordoned off – anything he could see from where he was standing was fair game to be photographed. No ifs ands or buts!

Publishing the photo is a SEPARATE issue that is not even being argued here.

Photo:
NYCPhotorights is completely correct.

In general, TAKING pictures have much fewer restrictions than PUBLISHING pictures.

The only restrictions I’m aware of off-hand about TAKING pictures concerns certain military installations, maybe some bridges, and pornography.

Restrictions on PUBLISHING pictures involve rights to privacy, commercial rights to a person’s image, copyright, defamation, context, etc..

Nevertheless, can YOU think of any law that would prohibit the photographer from publishing a photograph consisting solely of that private vehicle, in a context that did not associate anyone related to that vehicle with any stance?

Even when it comes to publishing pictures – editorial use (i.e. to illustrate a newspaper, book or magazine article) and sale of prints as art is given greater latitude than “commercial use” such as putting the image on a mousepad, coffee cup or using it in an ad.

If this were not the case then paparazzi would be out of business tomorrow and newspapers and books would not have the number of illustrations that they do.

1) take a reading comprehension course. I never said “. . .there is a law against taking pictures FROM public property. . .” I did mention criminal and civil liability for certain conduct under certain circumstances. The variables matter, dude.

2) “Nevertheless, can YOU think of any law that would prohibit the photographer from publishing a photograph consisting solely of that private vehicle, in a context that did not associate anyone related to that vehicle with any stance?” There is an error in your ASSumption. This may not be a “private vehicle.” It clearly was a “product” for the purposes of the photo shoot and appropriate precautions were taken. This context is not merely about any expectation of privacy related to photography in public places. The variables matter, dude.
3) “If this were not the case then paparazzi would be out of business tomorrow and newspapers and books would not have the number of illustrations that they do.” Apples and oranges. You are citing constitutional law and copyright law rights, I am discussing commercial law. Paparazzi rely on the first amendment and the legal definition of expectation of privacy. The illustrations you cite are paid for, and rights to publish are licensed by the author, owner. The variables matter, dud.

Photog:
I am a bit confused on your position regarding this incident. In one comment you SEEM to imply that what Ringo Kamens did was both stupid and against “commercial law”, yet when people responded to that, you told them that they were making assumptions and you are not saying that at all. Then you turned around and talked about “commercial law” again, in a manner that again seems to imply that you think Kamens’ actions were illegal.

I like to understand everyone’s views on the subject of photography and the law, whether I agree with those views or not. Would you please clarify for me what your point is (especially the point you were making in your first comment, #8)? Because I am not getting it. I may even agree with you, but I don’t know since I don’t understand what exactly you are saying.

Please pay attention. I said “commercial rights” in my first message. Those rights are akin to property rights and are defined and enforced under commercial law. Apples.

Ringo was essentially asserting first amendment violations when the property owner said, “You can’t use my property that way without my permission.” Oranges.

You will not win any legal argument by citing arguments supporting oranges when the issue is apples. You can argue oranges until you are blue in the face, or until your opponent objects to relevance, and the court will rule against you.

You need to learn the law of apples, find the loopholes and the boundaries, before you trespass to pick the apples from you neighbor’s tree without their permission based on the law that allows you to pick oranges from your neighbor’s tree without permission as long as you reach over the fence without stepping on the property to do so.

My point is, if you don’t know the relevant law protecting you and protecting the other person before you do something, you are asking for trouble in the form of civil or criminal liability.

My second point is, don’t argue about oranges when the subject is apples. Know the proper subject before mouthing off.

Photog:

First of all get off your ATTITUDE and learn how to talk to people.

You are the one confusing apples with oranges. The issue here was not even publishing. If it can be seen from public property then it can be photographed – it does not matter if it is a product, a vehicle, an animal, a building, or a person. As long as it is not some military secret hidden behind the fence at Area 51 – it can be photographed! While you may argue that if the photographer crosses into the area cordoned off for the photo shoot that he has “trespassed” in fact NO TRESPASS has occurred while standing on the publicly accessible side of the yellow tape or whatever it is they use to demarcate the zone.

Commercial law may limit my ability to use the photo but it certainly does not and cannot limit my ability to TAKE the picture from PUBLIC PROPERTY.

Well, there are a few more restrictions on taking pictures in public places, as I understand it.

If you are in a public place and take a photograph of someone else in a public place but in a manner that violates their reasonable expectation of privacy, I believe that is illegal. Shooting up-skirt comes to mind.

In some circumstances, mere possession of pornographic photographs may be illegal, so if one were to take a pornographic photograph in public in such circumstances, that maybe illegal.

I cannot think of any reason that taking pictures in Ringo’s case would be illegal.

As I said before, take the photos and tell the company what you did. . . then report back what happens. Talk is cheap, and does nothing to prove you have the courage of your convictions.

As for attitude, I was very patient with lazy, obtuse ignorance that refused to learn or research and expected me to be the answer person for no other reason than to provide an basis for arguing without facts to support their position.

Photog,

Unless the company is paying me, they have no authority as to whether or not I take photos of whatever they happen to be doing.

I came back approximately 10 minutes later with three witnesses (who I did not get the contact information of but I told to call my parents if I got arrested) so that the officers could no longer harass or threaten to arrest me for “loitering”.

So this guy wants us to believe he found 3 witnesses, gave them his parents name and number but didn’t get their names and numbers?

I have to agree with Carlos, though it hurts, screw that company, if they don’t want people taking pictures of their crappy car they should do a better job of concealing it from view.

Photog said, “As I said before, take the photos and tell the company what you did.”

Well, no, that is NOT what you said.

Photog:

Since you are the only one arguing that we do not have the right to take a picture from public property then you need to prove that position. Aside from prohibitions against taking pictures of subjects that have an expectation of privacy (such as upskirting) and certain military facilities there are no federal or state laws that regulate photography from public space. There are several photo attorney sites that support our position. Prove yours. I’m calling your bluff – show your cards or fold ‘em…

Meanwhile I am sure you have seen this site but in case you haven’t the relevant section reads:

Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations.

I am not talking about publishing the photo – only the right to take it.

I challenge the proposition that property owners may always legally prohibit photography on their own premises.

Photographers’ Guide to Privacy says “A photograph may intrude into a persons seclusion without being published. Intrusion can occur as soon as the image is taken.”

Reviewing the appellate decisions on that site for California and New York confirmed that photography while intruding or trespassing was not necessarily illegal.

I also recall reading another attorney who wrote that if you are on private property that is normally freely open to the public (such as a mall), the owners may eject you from their property because of your photography, but may not stop or confiscate your pictures that you took or are taking as you leave.

Photog:
I’m still not sure if I understand your viewpoint fully. Here is what I *think* you are saying:

(1) You SEEM to agree that it was perfectly legal and Ringo Kamens was within his constitutional rights to photograph the scene and the car from the open sidewalk, but
(2) because of “commercial law” and the expense that the commercial photographers and/or car owners went to in obtaining permits and closing the street, it should be obvious that they would object to someone else photographing the car and would obviously have the police (who generally don’t understand either commercial law or constitutional rights) harass anyone taking photos of their car, so therefore
(3) Ringo Kamens should not have photographed the car or else he should not have been surprised and upset, nor complained, when the cops did, in fact, harass him by trying to keep him from exercising his constitutional rights.

Is this your viewpoint? If not then I again say please clarify, because this is what you seem to be saying, and from reading the other comments on here, it seems others have interpreted your viewpoint similarly.