PDA

View Full Version : photography and the law



aostling
01-30-2009, 12:09 AM
Coming down from my climb of Camelback Mountain today I snapped this photo of the mansion on Cholla Lane. It has been under construction for about two years. It is so big (over 20,000 ft2 I'd guess) and employs so many workers that the contractor schedules a roach coach to arrive at noon. Today was the first time I'd seen the roofing tiles installed.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/aostling/ChollaLanehouseroofed-1.jpg


I spotted this new sign on the construction fence. Taking photographs of houses is not illegal, so I think the owner is engaged in some wishful thinking. Does he have a leg to stand on?

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/aostling/illegalsign-1.jpg

Evan
01-30-2009, 12:18 AM
He may have a leg to stand on. It has been tried in court and he has the copyright on the appearance of the property in some circumstances.



2. Property Releases

In some cases, you'll need to obtain a release for using pictures of places. You may find this odd -- after all if a building can be viewed publicly why is permission required to use an image of it? Over the last few decades some buildings have earned protection under both trademark or copyright laws or both. Trademark law will protect a building's appearance under very limited circumstances. If a distinctive-looking building is used to signify a business's services, then you cannot use an image of that building in a manner that will confuse consumers. For example, the Sears Tower in Chicago functions as a trademark, and if you intend to use it in the foreground of an advertisement, permission should be obtained from the Sears Company. Use of the building's image for informational purposes, such as in magazine article, does not require permission.

Is permission needed to use the image of a trademarked building on a postcard or poster? That issue arose when a photographer sold images of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A federal court of appeals permitted the use of the trademarked building on posters and did not consider it to be trademark infringement. (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile, 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998).)

Copyright protection also extends to architectural works, specifically for architectural works created after March 1, 1989. However copyright protection also has limitations. A release is not needed to photograph a building or property visible from a public place. However, permission is needed to photograph and reproduce images of a building protected by copyright and not visible from a public place. Entering private property to photograph a building or related private property may also trigger a claim of trespass. To avoid such claims, photographers, publishers and filmmakers use a property release, sometimes known as a location release.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-d.html




BTW, you need to downgrade the quality setting on those images. The files are huge.

Astronowanabe
01-30-2009, 12:18 AM
no. but ...their lawyers can beat up your lawyers


QUICK! somebody better warn Google!

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=lj6&q=Cholla+Lane,+phoenix+AZ&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us

dbc58
01-30-2009, 12:24 AM
If you can see it from a public place which has no expectation of privacy(restroom, locker room, etc), You can photograph it. GIS photgrapher's rights. It's a bluff.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Evan
01-30-2009, 12:27 AM
There is enough case law on the matter that a judge will entertain a suit. That's when you cave.

Ken_Shea
01-30-2009, 12:30 AM
Does he have a leg to stand on?

He does now :D

dbc58
01-30-2009, 12:36 AM
From Krages.com:

"The General Rule
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request. Some Exceptions to the Rule There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such. Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes."

aostling
01-30-2009, 12:38 AM
BTW, you need to downgrade the quality setting on those images. The files are huge.

Thanks, fixed that now.

Doc Nickel
01-30-2009, 12:51 AM
No, he has no leg to stand on.

If you're on public property (sidewalk, roadway, public beach, parkland, etc.) or private property that you have permission to be on (neighbor's yard, store parking lot, etc.) and you're not using the images for commercial purposes (meaning, you're not using the pix in something you're going to sell, like books, or using them in advertising, or trying to sell the photos themselves) then you can, with remarkably few exceptions, photograph virtually whatever you wish.

That is, for better or for worse, what keeps all those telephoto-equipped paparazzi from being sued or charged for snapping some celebrity in a bikini.

Yes, there have been some misguided attempts to try to keep people from photographing some public places under the supposed auspices of "Homeland Security", but few- if any- have actually gone to court.

The sign is nothing more than a deterrent to keep gawkers and tourists away. Like a "No Trespassing" sign only keeps those that actually obey such signs out.

Doc.

dbc58
01-30-2009, 12:56 AM
Evan, what you have quoted is valid, but it is "fair use" law. Merely taking the photos is not prohibited or actionable. It's what you do with the photos that could become a problem down the road regarding copyright or trademark infringement. The sign on the fence only applies if you enter the property and take photos.

Evan
01-30-2009, 01:01 AM
That is true. It is equally true that a judge will almost certainly entertain a suit over the matter if only to determine if either trespassing occurred or privacy was violated. That gets expensive fast and if you don't show up you will find a default judgement against you. That is unfortunately how the legal system works in the US.

tattoomike68
01-30-2009, 01:30 AM
Coming down from my climb of Camelback Mountain today I snapped this photo of the mansion on Cholla Lane. It has been under construction for about two years. It is so big (over 20,000 ft2 I'd guess) and employs so many workers that the contractor schedules a roach coach to arrive at noon. Today was the first time I'd seen the roofing tiles installed.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/aostling/ChollaLanehouseroofed-1.jpg


I spotted this new sign on the construction fence. Taking photographs of houses is not illegal, so I think the owner is engaged in some wishful thinking. Does he have a leg to stand on?

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/aostling/illegalsign-1.jpg


I shoot video all he time. i can shoot anything I want from the public right of way, we have this cool thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION.

That sign is butwipe, it means nothing.

danlb
01-30-2009, 01:47 AM
Shortly after 9-11 I was chased from a public parking lot where I was taking pictures.

The sherriff (whom I did not argue with) said that taking pictures of planes or airports was prohibited. I have no idea how true that was, but it's never worth while to fight with cops over small stuff like pictures.

Dan

dbc58
01-30-2009, 02:05 AM
Not quite how it works. Yes, it may cost you a day in court and much more if you ingnore it. Unfortunately, that is the cost of freedom. If the owner wants to go to court, I doubt he could get an attorney to take the case (although I may be suprised). Attorneys can be sactioned, fined, held in contempt, or even disbarred for false or frivolous lawsuits and most of all they don't make money on these kinds of suits. That leaves small claims court. The owner would have to personally pay to file, pay to have you served, and appear without an attorney and prove you caused him actual monetary damages. Not really likely to happen. All you would have to do is appear and request a dismissal. You can also counter sue for actual and punitive damages (varies state to state) and if the judge is irritated enough about the waste of the court's time you may win. If he called the cops and accused you of tresspass and actually succeeded in getting you arrested, he would be exposing himself to serious criminal and civil lawsuit himself (providing you did not take any photos while standing on his property). Any one can sue anyone for anything. Thats what the judge is for - to use judgement. I'm not a laywer, but I've been through the small claims system and won.

dbc58
01-30-2009, 02:12 AM
Shortly after 9-11 I was chased from a public parking lot where I was taking pictures.

The sherriff (whom I did not argue with) said that taking pictures of planes or airports was prohibited. I have no idea how true that was, but it's never worth while to fight with cops over small stuff like pictures.

Dan

The sheriiff was wrong, but you were wise to pick your battles. There are a lot of people arrested for stuff like that. When they find out that there is no law against what you did it becomes "disobeying a lawful order" or "interfering" or "resisting arrest". You should file a complaint with the sheriff's department.

speedy
01-30-2009, 04:32 AM
Allan, that must be one of the ugliest detention centres that I have ever seen:)

oldtiffie
01-30-2009, 05:07 AM
Is it a new style of trailer park?

Is it a new model "Cuckoo's Nest" that one may not fly over?

Is it an asylum where the inmates are running it? (There's lots of 'em about).

Was the wall modeled on the one in China or Hadrian's effort in the UK - do they have photo or patent right over them?

I do hope they weren't modeled on the ones in Jericho - but just in case, don't have your MP3 player up loud with "brass" (trumpets etc) playing. No "fanfares" by request please.

aostling
01-30-2009, 05:13 AM
Allan, that must be one of the ugliest detention centre that I have ever seen:)

I'm no apologist for Phoenix architecture. Here almost all the houses (however expensive) are faced with stucco over styrofoam and chicken wire.
I cannot imagine wanting to live in such a sprawling place. I'll take the New Zealand colonial Victorian architecture of Wellington, New Plymouth, or Wanganui, any day. Here's an example, Amber House in Nelson:

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/aostling/AmberHouse.jpg

Dawai
01-30-2009, 05:31 AM
The sheriiff was wrong, but you were wise to pick your battles.

SOME policemen just look for a excuse to "beat into submission" a person who pisses them off, looked like someone who picked on them in highschool, drug dealer, has a nicer car than he does, has a harley, has teeth when he does not, has money in his pocket, or........ Ego trips.. I can't wait till a 360 camera is mandatory for policemen, to help them do their job, to help us watch them be polite and legal to citizens..

My surveillance cameras, our local sheriff says it is okay to film someone elses house, but you can not "look" in windows.. when the meth dealer was in full business next door I had dvd's of 10 minute visits by hundreds of cars. THat guy moved his business within a week of finding out a camera was looking and linked to the internet. Where he moved it to was a pizza delivery business.. Perfect cover I might add, till he was arrested selling at a custom wheel store too..
they said he was the Largest meth dealer in the SOUTH on the news.. figures.. They kept him overnight. I guess the medical costs on meth heads is too high to house them long.

He was walking down the road, his legs looked like sticks.. he was thin as a scarecrow. Had a racking cough.. Ain't long no how..

Your Old Dog
01-30-2009, 07:25 AM
I've spent the better part of my life taking pictures of people and things people didn't want pictures of. As long as you are on private property and it has nothing to do with National Defense have a good time.

I was once stopped by guards for shooting a steel mill near a sign that said "no photographs". I called the News Director on the radio and he asked me, as this was a Friday, if I had plans for the weekend. I said no and he said, well let them take you and I'll make you the richest man in Youngstown ! :D The guards made a radio call and I was on my way.

Unless this place has something to do with government security I'd shoot all I wanted to in hopes of filing a false arrest claim and suing for emotional distress.

** An issue does arise on what you plan to do with the photographs. If they are an artistic venture only you are in the clear. If you plan on making money with them then you may be in gray matter. Oddly enough, they may be sold as artwork. This is all from a recently decided court case where a New York Hecedic Jew objected to a photographer taking his picture. In short, the law suit said you cannot sue on artistic claims but if the guys picture showed up on billboards across the country advertising for barber shops you could sue.

While I am no legal expert I would venture to say I have taken more photographic shots in my life time then everyone on this board put together :D My first photographer full time job starting in 1968 and ending in 8/15/2006. By my math thats 40 years, but then that's why I don't to CNC! I always sucked at math.

TattooMike, just curious, does this thing show from Google Earth? Don't know where you're from so I can't search it myself.

Evan
01-30-2009, 07:34 AM
Not quite how it works. Yes, it may cost you a day in court and much more if you ingnore it. Unfortunately, that is the cost of freedom. If the owner wants to go to court, I doubt he could get an attorney to take the case (although I may be suprised). Attorneys can be sactioned, fined, held in contempt, or even disbarred for false or frivolous lawsuits and most of all they don't make money on these kinds of suits. That leaves small claims court.

If the case is over architectural copyright such cases can only be tried in federal court. All the owner has to say is that the photographer may have been standing on his property when the image was taken. For all that Allen may know the owner of that mansion owns the hillside he was standing on.


we have this cool thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION.


The first amendment ends where another person's privacy begins. The first amendment has nothing to say about that and it doesn't override it.

YOD,

News reporting has special treatment under the law as "documentary reporting". You only qualify if the images you are taking are being used to report news. That is covered under the first amendment. (according to the Supreme Court)

Doc Nickel
01-30-2009, 08:49 AM
While I am no legal expert I would venture to say I have taken more photographic shots in my life time then everyone on this board put together.

-Don't bet on that. :D

I have somewhere around 3,000 slides, and anywhere from 7,000 to 10,000 frames of 35mm.

I went digital in '99 (with a cheap point-and-shoot, but it was just for web upload anyway) and after five years, I'd taken another 5,000 to 8,000 photos.

I went to an SLR digital in 2005, and by the time I upgraded in 2006, I'd taken between 10,000 and 15,000 frames. The first year, among other things, I shot four paintball tournaments, averaging 2,000 pics each.

I got the big 1D in '06, and last time I checked the shutter stats, last summer sometime, it was in the mid-thirty-thousands. The older XT is currently in the mid-40K range.

Doc.

Evan
01-30-2009, 09:00 AM
Heh. For an average classy wedding at the Jasper Park Lodge my daughter takes between 1000 to 2000 frames in a few hours. For her, cameras and even lenses are consumables. She has two of everything around her neck and in her bag (including laptops) plus a backup in the car. By the time the reception is on she already has a slide show prepared that she shows with a digital projector for the wedding party.


edit:

I also have about 4000 images online and many, many more that are not. My Forest of Light video consists of nearly 2000 still frames taken in the course of one day. I have others that I have not posted inluding some time lapse shots of the night sky. When I shoot photos of the sky I will take as many a several hundred for a single image. For a single finished image of the moon taken with my telescope I took 240 still frames and combined them all to make a single image.

gfphoto
01-30-2009, 10:14 AM
In America we have all sorts of "rights". In most cases it seems our "rights" are based on what is actually right and proper, more or less what's set forth in the Bill of Rights. Sometimes though our "rights" are more like permissions. Slavery for example was once a "right" but never was right. Prohibition was the law but not a good or right law. I could give the most egregious example of a wrong present "right" but that would violate political correctness so will leave it to the readers' imagination.

The question was whether a property owner can prohibit photography. That's been answered; but in some of the replies there is an attitude that if it isn't legally prohibited then there's no reason one can't or shouldn't photograph it. I wonder if those people have children or spouses? Say your child is playing in the yard or park, or your spouse is walking down the street, and a stranger stands nearby taking pictures. Knowing you have no legal right to interfere what would you do besides politely requesting that person stop and perhaps hand over the film or erase the photos? I challenge any parent or married person no matter how devoted to the letter of the law and all it might allow to go along with that.

If I know a property owner doesn't want the property photographed then I'll respect that. To me that's a "leg to stand on".

Gary Fuchs

Cedge
01-30-2009, 10:48 AM
About 4 years back we visited the Alamo in San Antonio Tx. As everyone knows, this monument is under the auspices of the national parks system.

I had just purchased a Sony "prosumer" level DSLR camera for the trip and was taking photos of the grounds and the outside of the old mission when one of the park rangers approached me. She watched me shoot for a few minutes and then walked up to me. Since the camera has an LCD for viewing shots, I shared the previous photo with her.

To my absolute surprise she told me I would have to erase the photos because professional photography was prohibited. She informed me that the Park system owned the copyrights to the Alamo and I could not use the photos for commercial purposes. Even after explaining that they were for personal use, she asked me again to erase the chip.

Thinking fast, I remembered the camera used two different memory chips and both were on board at that moment. I switched to the empty chip, showed her the formatting message and walked away with my photos. Sort of took some of the fun out of the day.... Go figure.

Steve

lazlo
01-30-2009, 10:59 AM
Does he have a leg to stand on?

That signs holds as much weight as the signs some truckers started using a couple of years ago:

"Stay Back 200 Feet: Not Responsible for Broken Windshields!"

People don't know for sure, so it has a deterrent effect.

Getting There: Truck's 'not responsible' sign is wishful thinking (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/310804_getthere09.html)

MCS
01-30-2009, 11:54 AM
It's not my law, but looking at the situation I see:

A non-transparant fence and the sign.

Here it would be interpreted it as:

"Photographing when beyond the fence is prohibited."

You can photograph anything from the public road whatever you like or dislike. The fence is the border between public and private. A guest on private ground has to conform with the special in- and exclusions, or stay away.

dp
01-30-2009, 01:35 PM
no. but ...their lawyers can beat up your lawyers


QUICK! somebody better warn Google!

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=lj6&q=Cholla+Lane,+phoenix+AZ&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us

Wrong house - http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=camelback,+phoenix+AZ&sll=33.570229,-111.999146&sspn=0.020668,0.037766&gl=us&ie=UTF8&ll=33.513803,-111.945625&spn=0.001293,0.00236&t=h&z=19

dbc58
01-30-2009, 01:42 PM
If the case is over architectural copyright such cases can only be tried in federal court. All the owner has to say is that the photographer may have been standing on his property when the image was taken. For all that Allen may know the owner of that mansion owns the hillside he was standing on.


A release is not needed to photograph a building or property visible from a public place. However, permission is needed to photograph and reproduce images of a building protected by copyright and not visible from a public place.

Which is it? The sidewalk, a field, or a city park unless posted otherwise is a public place. I kinda doubt that Camelback is privately owned. The owner has to do more than just say it, he has to prove it and the photos are your best defense. The property owner cannot do anything but ask you to stop and leave his property. If it is posted, and you are on his property, he can have you arrested and you photos siezed pending a judge's decision. If you are not on his property it is a request that you don't have to honor unless you want to.
Once you take a photo, it is your property and can only legally be destroyed by you or with your permission without a court order. Only a judge can order them destroyed and only if there is cause. Police can ask, but you are not obligated or required to delete photos. The question is: Do you have the determination to stand up for you rights? Is it worth the hassle of arguing with them and being falsely arrested?
You keep adding the element of commercial use. That is a whole different subject. No action can be taken in that arena until damages are caused. Simply taking the photo does not cause damage.
The sign is a bluff and carries no weight.

Liger Zero
01-30-2009, 02:05 PM
I wanted a picture of the Local Nuclear Thingy to show a friend in Canada. Ginna Station is not your typical Industrial Wasteland Nuclear Power Plant, they took pains to keep the area nice, and the plant is painted a shade of green and other green so it doesn't stick out at a distance.

I was told I could take the photos, with permission... and I had to have them reviewed by the guards before I left. They wanted to make sure none of the security arrangements showed in the photos.

Fair enough. I got my pictures, they got their security. :)

Evan
01-30-2009, 02:21 PM
Which is it? The sidewalk, a field, or a city park unless posted otherwise is a public place. I kinda doubt that Camelback is privately owned. The owner has to do more than just say it, he has to prove it and the photos are your best defense. The property owner cannot do anything but ask you to stop and leave his property. If it is posted, and you are on his property, he can have you arrested and you photos siezed pending a judge's decision. If you are not on his property it is a request that you don't have to honor unless you want to.
Once you take a photo, it is your property and can only legally be destroyed by you or with your permission without a court order. Only a judge can order them destroyed and only if there is cause. Police can ask, but you are not obligated or required to delete photos. The question is: Do you have the determination to stand up for you rights? Is it worth the hassle of arguing with them and being falsely arrested?
You keep adding the element of commercial use. That is a whole different subject. No action can be taken in that arena until damages are caused. Simply taking the photo does not cause damage.
The sign is a bluff and carries no weight.


The first quote is my words, the second is not. Please differentiate in the future.

I am not adding the element of commercial use. I am adding the element of using the legal system as a club. If you have the money to build such a place you also have the money to make that sign a reality that must be respected for practical purposes. Not only is it not a good idea to piss off policemen, it also isn't a good idea to piss off people that can buy policemen.

Doc Nickel
01-30-2009, 05:59 PM
Thinking fast, I remembered the camera used two different memory chips and both were on board at that moment. I switched to the empty chip, showed her the formatting message and walked away with my photos.

-Actually, it's very, very easy to recover images from even a "formatted" card. The data is not "gone", the erasure or formatting just removes the file structure, letting the camera know that that area of the storage medium is again available for use/recording.

So the trick a few years ago when the "homeland security" thing was hassling New York tourists about photographing "potential targets" was to delete/erase or format, as you were asked to do, then just pocket the card.

Once you're back at home (or hotel, or wherever your computer/laptop is) run the card's recovery software (available online from the card maker, no charge) and you'll have all your photos back safe and sound.

Few cops/security types know this, and those that do realize there's no way to truly remove the images apart from breaking the card or confiscating it- and while they might strong-arm you into deleting them (which you absolutely do NOT have to do) they're not so stupid to think they can take or damage your property.

Doc.

jkilroy
01-30-2009, 06:28 PM
I'm not the oldest guy here but I bet I have taken more pictures than anyone else here. I used to do school year books and sports teams. I've probably shot more rolls than most folks have shot frames, and it DID suck! :D

speedy
01-31-2009, 03:23 AM
I'm no apologist for Phoenix architecture. Here almost all the houses (however expensive) are faced with stucco over styrofoam and chicken wire.

We have thousands of those "chilly bin" (aussie: esky)homes here Allan. They would mostly be rotting from the inside out. They're not much cop where the rainfall is "adequate":)

Your Old Dog
01-31-2009, 06:36 AM
Well I've had to keep my shooting ratio down of images taken to images used so as to get my editing done before the news cast started. Wading through all the debris takes as long as shooting it does. In the film days I was happy with one or two keeper art shots in a 36 exposure roll. (if someone wants to figure out the work numbers it was 37 work years less weekends, 5 weeks vacation. Per day I likely averaged about 600 feet of film at 24 frames per second and 3 minutes 46 seconds per 100 feet.)

Evan, if your daughter is taking 2000 shots per wedding per day that's about 4.16 shots per minute per 8 hour day :D I hope she's charging for it as the girl is earning her money.

In the old film days, if I remember correctly, Kodak said a good shoot to air ratio for news stories was 3 to 1. Had I shot much more if other then court stories or sports I'd have been canned!

As for the original post, I think MCS probably has the answer. It should have read "from beyond the fence" as every construction site I've entered has that sign. I think it has to do with OSHA and or Insurance companies getting a glimpse of something the boss don't want them to see.

Doc Nickel
01-31-2009, 07:14 AM
Evan, if your daughter is taking 2000 shots per wedding per day that's about 4.16 shots per minute per 8 hour day[.]

-At last year's Superbowl, the average major-paper photographer shot five thousand frames between kickoff and handing out the trophy. One team photographer (as in, employed by one of the two teams themselves) supposedly fired close to fifteen thousand.

One estimate figured that, counting only the "pro" shooters (as in, discounting the people in the stands) and discounting video, somewhere around three and a half million photographs were taken during last years' Superbowl.


In the old film days, if I remember correctly, Kodak said a good shoot to air ratio for news stories was 3 to 1.

-That would have been staggeringly good. Well, presuming cartridge-loaded films; back in the large-format days, that was probably about right, since a dedicated photog might only take half a dozen photos of a given event, tops.

That's why images like the flag-raising over Iwo Jima got to be so iconic- that was literally the only photo of the event, or damn close to it.

But in the 35mm days, yeah, I heard from a pro photojournalist that the average (at least for him) was one "keeper" per roll. The three times I've been in the news (local, small-town articles, nothing special) the shooter took at least six rolls per event. The first article had five shots, the second used only three.

'Course, now with fast digitals and cheap memory (I frequently carry "just" four gigs in my 1D- that's enough for 1,100 to 1,400 photos; I can theoretically jam 32 gigs into it with off-the-shelf cards) there's a whole lotta "spray and pray" going on. I'm guilty of it myself, and that pro I mentioned said once he went digital with a D2h, he immediately found himself tripling or quadrupling the number of shots he took- even after fifteen years of 32-per-roll training. :D

Doc.

Evan
01-31-2009, 09:42 AM
I hope she's charging for it as the girl is earning her money.



She makes up to 3k for an afternoon's work. She is booked solid for this year.

I got her started way back by giving her one of my old SLR film camera and a couple of lenses and she ran with it. She is the best people photographer I have seen in a long time. She also does sports and functions like company meetings as well as general family photos. She has the distinct advantage of living in some of the most spectacular scenery in North America and she has a range of favorite locations that she has picked that are photo shoot "friendly".

http://sarahburnsphoto.com/

lazlo
01-31-2009, 09:47 AM
That's why images like the flag-raising over Iwo Jima got to be so iconic- that was literally the only photo of the event, or damn close to it.

The Joe Rosenthal (AP photographer) picture of the flag raising at Iwo Jima was posed after the real event.

These are the pictures of the real flag raising over Iwo Jima taken by Bob Campbell, a Marine combat photographer:

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflagk.gif

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflagi.gif

Spin Doctor
01-31-2009, 02:02 PM
That there was two flag raisings on Iwo is nothing but old news. The second wasn't really staged as it was a matter of the brass wanted a larger flag raised that would be more visible. That's the shot that Rosenthal got. He stated in an interview he just happened to turn around and got it. That the Marine Corps initially gave the first group of Marines no credit is not the fault of anybody that was there. One of the ironies is that the Marine whos hands are outstretched seemingly trying to grasp the piece of pipe used as a flag pole was Ira Hayes. In his life after WWII he was never able to reach the dream the flag is supposed to represent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Hayes
http://www.thegoldweb.com/voices/irahayes.htm

dp
01-31-2009, 02:29 PM
http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingb.htm

There were a lot of cameras going and film, too.

lazlo
01-31-2009, 03:10 PM
Spin, if you look at the first picture I posted, that's the second flag raising. You can see the Marines taking the smaller flag down.

This is the official story from AP news (Joe Rosenthal was an AP photographer). The controversy is whether Joe had the second set of flag raisers pose:

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pulitzer/rosenthal.html


Rosenthal's story, told again and again with virtually no variation over the years, is this:

On Feb. 23, 1945, four days after D-Day at Iwo Jima, he was making his daily trek to the island on a Marine landing craft when he heard that a flag was being raised atop Mount Suribachi, a volcano at the southern tip of the island.

Marines had been battling for the high ground of Suribachi since their initial landing on Iwo Jima, and now, after suffering terrible losses on the beaches below it, they appeared to be taking it.

Upon landing, Rosenthal hurried toward Suribachi, lugging along his bulky Speed Graphic camera, the standard for press photographers at the time. Along the way, he came across two Marine photographers, Pfc. Bob Campbell, shooting still pictures, and Staff Sgt. Bill Genaust, shooting movies. The three men proceeded up the mountain together.

About halfway up, they met four Marines coming down. Among them was Sgt. Lou Lowery, a photographer for Leatherneck magazine, who said the flag had already been raised on the summit. He added that it was worth the climb anyway for the view. Rosenthal and the others decided to continue.

The first flag, he would later learn, was raised at 10:37 a.m. Shortly thereafter, Marine commanders decided, for reasons still clouded in controversy, to replace it with a larger flag.

At the top, Rosenthal tried to find the Marines who had raised the first flag, figuring he could get a group picture of them beside it. When no one seemed willing or able to tell him where they were, he turned his attention to a group of Marines preparing the second flag to be raised.

Here, with the rest of the story, is Rosenthal writing in Collier's magazine in 1955:

"I thought of trying to get a shot of the two flags, one coming down and the other going up, but although this turned out to be a picture Bob Campbell got, I couldn't line it up. Then I decided to get just the one flag going up, and I backed off about 35 feet.

"Out of the corner of my eye, as I had turned toward Genaust, I had seen the men start the flag up. I swung my camera, and shot the scene."

Rosenthal didn't know what he had taken. He certainly had no inkling he had just taken the best photograph of his career. To make sure he had something worth printing, he gathered all the Marines on the summit together for a jubilant shot under the flag that became known as his "gung-ho" picture.

And then he went down the mountain. At the bottom, he looked at his watch. It was 1:05 p.m.

Rosenthal hurried back to the command ship, where he wrote captions for all the pictures he had sent that day, and shipped the film off to the military press center in Guam. There it was processed, edited and sent by radio transmission to the mainland.

On the caption, Rosenthal had written: "Atop 550-foot Suribachi Yama, the volcano at the southwest tip of Iwo Jima, Marines of the Second Battalion, 28th Regiment, Fifth Division, hoist the Stars and Stripes, signaling the capture of this key position."

At the same time, he told an AP correspondent, Hamilton Feron, that he had shot the second of two flag raisings that day. Feron wrote a story mentioning the two flags.

The flag-raising picture was an immediate sensation back in the States. It arrived in time to be on the front pages of Sunday newspapers across the country on Feb. 25. Rosenthal was quickly wired a congratulatory note from AP headquarters in New York. But he had no idea which picture they were congratulating him for.

A few days later, back in Guam, someone asked him if he posed the picture. Assuming this was a reference to the "gung-ho shot," he said,"Sure."

Not long after, Sherrod, the Time-Life correspondent, sent a cable to his editors in New York reporting that Rosenthal had staged the flag-raising photo. Time magazine's radio show, "Time Views the News," broadcast a report charging that "Rosenthal climbed Suribachi after the flag had already been planted. ... Like most photographers (he) could not resist reposing his characters in historic fashion."

Time was to retract the story within days and issue an apology to Rosenthal. He accepted it, but was never able to entirely shake the taint Time had cast on his story.

There is still, of course, the issue of whether the second flag-raising was noteworthy enough to have been enshrined as a historical icon. Here, the facts are of little use; all that matters is interpretation.

To be sure, it didn't help that the Marine Corps and most of the wartime press conveniently glossed over the fact of the first flag-raising. This helped foster a public notion of cover-up.

But whether or not there was a cover-up (Albee and Freeman are persuasive in arguing that the Marine brass decided to put a lid on the first flag-raising), was the second flag-raising worthy of Rosenthal's picture?

Some vehemently argue no.

"They call that the Iwo Jima flag-raising, which it ain't," declared Charles Lindberg, a retired electrician in Richfield, Minn., who is the last surviving member of either flag-raising - in his case, the first.

"It's a good picture," Lindberg conceded. "I even told Joe Rosenthal that it was a good picture. But me and him get into a few arguments."

That is because Lindberg, like others in the first-flag raising, believed that all the glory was showered on the second flag-raisers, who were less deserving.

DanLins
02-03-2009, 09:16 AM
The first quote is my words, the second is not. Please differentiate in the future.

I am not adding the element of commercial use. I am adding the element of using the legal system as a club. If you have the money to build such a place you also have the money to make that sign a reality that must be respected for practical purposes. Not only is it not a good idea to piss off policemen, it also isn't a good idea to piss off people that can buy policemen.

Sounds like it all comes down to belief in our legal system. How many times have we heard of the "little old ladies" or the downtrodden prevailing in court? That has nothing to do with the amount of money the prosecution is willing to spend. And as far as buying policemen, I don't have enough experience with this to comment. It may be more prevalent in your area. Bottom line, if you are in the right, legally, I would encourage you to proceed and not be overly fearful of someone blowing legal smokescreens.

dl

aostling
02-26-2010, 04:28 AM
This video shows a photographer being detained after he was observed photographing Santa Claus in England. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest. It's a good example of keeping cool, when tempers might be strained.

Evan
02-26-2010, 07:30 AM
And as far as buying policemen, I don't have enough experience with this to comment. It may be more prevalent in your area. Bottom line, if you are in the right, legally, I would encourage you to proceed and not be overly fearful of someone blowing legal smokescreens.


We don't elect local law enforcement officials here. Many US jurisdictions do. That is a common basis in the US for a subtle form of corruption where the local Sheriff is beholden to those that helped elect him. That tends to include people with a lot of money.

Rustybolt
02-26-2010, 07:49 AM
Sorry, but the owner does not own the public view. You may not, though, publish it with the intent to harm the owner or profit from the photograph.

Mcgyver
02-26-2010, 08:22 AM
Not quite how it works. Yes, it may cost you a day in court and much more if you ignore it. Unfortunately, that is the cost of freedom. If the owner wants to go to court, I doubt he could get an attorney to take the case (although I may be surprised).

prepare to be surprised. you or me looking to hire a litigator are going to be able to afford so many $ or offer so much % of some paltry settlement. A guy building a 20k sq ft mansion is in a different league. Giving his litigator a 200k retainer is one way to remove the doubt :D.

Damages in Canada are difficult to get, not so in America; we all get to see the American civil litigation award headlines. So if they come at you for millions because their kooky religion says photographing their house ruins there lives or whatever nonsense they concoct, you're not defending in small claims. Judges seem incredibly wonky so while its a ridiculous case, relying on it not being heard is scary. Your day in court and quest to preserve freedom might cost you your house in legal fees...It's unbelievable how fast the cost on litigation goes stratospheric.

Now, would they claim? other than proving a point there is almost no win to them and considerable cost so very unlikely....but depending on the other side's ration behaviour when in a fight carries risk.

Evan
02-26-2010, 08:58 AM
If the owner wants to go to court, I doubt he could get an attorney to take the case (although I may be surprised).

You can't be serious.

Tony Ennis
02-26-2010, 10:38 AM
we all get to see the American civil litigation award headlines.

What you don't see is the less sensational settlements that happen when the case is appealed. There is still plenty of thievery of course.

The guy with the 20k sq ft house has a lawyer. He'll call the lawyer and say, "This guy offended me." The lawyer's job is to make the guy surrender the pictures or be sorry. Or both. The homeowner doesn't have to "win" the case. He just has to 1. see to it his lawyer drains the finances of the photographer, and 2. the case isn't so trivial that he can be successfully counter-sued.

aboard_epsilon
02-26-2010, 10:44 AM
This video shows a photographer being detained after he was observed photographing Santa Claus in England. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest. It's a good example of keeping cool, when tempers might be strained.

did you see the other one ...no smiley for utter disgust :eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/15/police-terrorism

My country is going to the dogs . :(

all the best.markj

aostling
04-09-2010, 09:33 PM
I moved to Phoenix in 1965, and lived here for eighteen months before moving back to Palo Alto. After thirty-five years living elsewhere I moved back to Phoenix in 2001. Today I decided to find the house of an old girlfriend during those earlier years. Which is how I found myself at Polk & 53rd St in an enclave of houses now almost isolated after they built a nearby freeway. I didn't find the house of my memory, but I couldn't resist taking this photo of one of the local "mansions."

Right after I clicked the shutter an irate man came storming out. "Can I help you!" he demanded. He looked like a mean customer with good reasons for not wanting strangers to take photos of his whereabouts. I half smiled, confident because I knew (thanks to advice on this forum) that there is no law against taking photos of houses from the vantage of city property (which I was on).

"I think I used to live here," I told him. This seemed like a safer response than quoting laws. His expression of belligerence changed to one of astonishment.

"You lived here?" he asked.

"Well, actually it was my girlfriend. This was back in '65, quite a while ago. I'm just trying to relive old memories." Completely satisfied, he wished me well, and went back into the house.

[insert moral to this story, here]

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/aostling/5326EPolkStPhoenix.jpg

Brett Hurt
04-10-2010, 12:17 AM
Go back a 3am and remove it, and then tack your picture works for me because I saw no cameras, or better yet tack it home and put it on your house and charge for the picture. I live in CA. and they ignore those things.

aostling
04-10-2010, 12:25 AM
Go back a 3am and remove it, and then tack your picture works for me because I saw no cameras, or better yet tack it home and put it on your house and charge for the picture. I live in CA. and they ignore those things.

Are you responding to post #1? That was fifteen months ago.

John Stevenson
04-10-2010, 06:49 AM
He's using a slow shutter speed.....................

.

spope14
04-10-2010, 08:04 AM
Sometimes the issue depends upon your intent in shooting the photograph. If your intent was to photograph the house, you get into fuzzy area, but if from a public way, this makes it fuzzier. If you were climbing the fence or shooting through the holes in the fence, or climbing camelback to shoot a pic of the house expressly, then it becomes a bit more hard to defend. Publishing the photos after knowing the restriction to point out the restriction....well....

I work at a school and have been invloved in TV Production. Shooting film of people at public events in public parks and on streets is legal. Using specific images of people gets tricky, using them as specific talking heads or specifically named or highlighted people in a photo or event requires a model release.

Filming or photographing students in a school facility requires quite a bit of discretion and permission due to the possibility of some students being invloved who may be in custody cases, or for that matter, even in a witness protection program (this was said to me). Even the surrounds of the school on the streets becomes an issue when photographing students due to this.

I take hundreds of photos of students working in the shop and students partaking in activities in the schools and throughout the community. I get clearance for them all if they are going to in any way leave my posession on things like web sites, photobucket. All my students have approved "blanket" model releases through the school district, check this out each year and each new group. If shooting an activity, I tend to check the list and see who may NOT be in the list, there is not a "Do not photograph list", highlights the names..... I have deleted photos before.

It is all very fuzzy, goes to intent and use of the photos in the end, and sometimes distribution - eben on personal distribution sites. Best to be on the careful side, for even when innicent, dealing with lawyers is a complete loss of your life time that can be better spent elsewhere - unless this is your livelyhood.