Univision Reporters Tell Ron Paul Supporter He Has No Right To Record Them
At first, I sympathized with the Univision news crew when the annoying Ron Paul supporter insisted on sticking his sign in their shot.
But that lasted a few seconds until the Univision news videographer, carrying a large camera on his shoulder, informed the Ron Paul supporter that he did not have the right to record them.
A woman who apparently also works at Univision told the Ron Paul supporter that it was “illegal” to record them with his camera.
The cameraman even went as far as asking a Miami police officer to order him to stop recording them.
And fortunately, the cop straight-out told him he was not going to stop him from recording.
The cop did try to steer the Ron Paul supporter away from the news crew so they could complete their live shot without his distracting sign in the background.
And that, of course, will lead many Ron Paul supporters to cry out conspiracy against their candidate.
But it wouldn’t have been any different had he been supporting any other candidate.
The sad part about this video is that the media really did believe that it was illegal to record them without getting permission. It’s been my experience that many in the mainstream media are pretty much clueless to the actual laws.
You should see some emails I’ve exchanged with reporters in the mainstream media over the years where they were trying to educate me in what I write about daily.
Univision purchased my footage of the arrests at Florida International University last week and even asked if I would be interested in stringing for them, which I am.
But I can’t let the potential of that deal prevent me from calling them out on the ignorance of some of their employees.
There's always going to be some asshole trying to screw up your shot. I like the way this guy handled it.
Please send stories, videos and tips to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com
Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?




























Comments
There goes your stringer assignment!
Not much of a loss if they revoke the assignment because they were schooled on the law. I'd say screw 'em.
We all must play by the same rules. If they drop you becose of this you will be better off, do not need petyness.
"eng my contry, u no taka de peekshure..."
DEA agent fails to prove viral video violated Privacy Act:
The disclosure of a video showing a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officer accidentally shooting himself in the leg during a lecture to community youths does not violate the federal Privacy Act, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday. The court also rejected the officer's claim for invasion of privacy under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed a lower court ruling from December 2010, which ruled DEA Special Agent Lee Paige failed to establish that an Internet leak of a video of his April 2004 presentation in Orlando, Fla. was a violation of federal law.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/dea-agent-fails-prov...
The Ron Paul supporter is 100% in his right. He is, however, still being an asshat . . . which is his right.
Your starting to sound like me.
Roger the annoying
I finally have it figured out, the media has the same rules as porno! I mean, you can't be a male porn star if you are a 3-6 incher.
Well, unless you have a camera the size of a bazooka you can't be media and the 1st Amendment def does NOT apply to you! But don't be blue, you can be pro media too! Just get yourself an old full sized vhs camcorder, and viola - instant pro! Because in the news business, just like porno, size DOES matter!
Well there goes THAT dream! (I'll let you guess which one)
Post new comment