Train photographers getting arrested

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

The NYT had a piece on photographers on public property getting
arrested, including several examples in NYC. (Some of this is old
news).

for full article please see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?ref=nyregion

Is the model board of an NYCT tower considered "sensitive" that it
should not be photographed?


In the railroad newsgroup there was an article from the Washington
Post describing numerous examples of problems photographers had in DC.

There are books published explaining the legal rights and
responsibilities of photographers and I found it very helpful. There
are some restrictions on the right of photography in public places,
and individuals have some right of privacy even in a public place.
(Most of all this is common sense).

[Vince]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The NYT had a piece on photographers on public property getting
arrested, including several examples in NYC. (Some of this is old
news).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?ref=nyregion
Is the model board of an NYCT tower considered "sensitive" that it
should not be photographed?

Again TA personnel being overly protected

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In the railroad newsgroup there was an article from the Washington
Post describing numerous examples of problems photographers had in DC.
There are books published explaining the legal rights and
responsibilities of photographers and I found it very helpful. There
are some restrictions on the right of photography in public places,
and individuals have some right of privacy even in a public place.
(Most of all this is common sense).

Oh cut the crap we all know its been legal for years to shoot on the
NYCTA. This is cops etc making it up as they go along

A right to privacy even in a public place? Thats a hard one

Many years ago I had a friend who didn't like his picture taken, (he
give in later on however) anyway another friend told him of how a
neighbor shot him when he was on the street with her movie camera.
"Oh I can sue her for invasion of privacy"
WRONG!

For one thing what is public and what isn't?

Some years back I shot a small wedding in Lincoln Center, where the
couple rented tables at one of LC's eateries.
As it turned out I was unable to use any of the backgrounds inside LC
out doors no problems, what a loss. I think LC is private

Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.




In closing this is no was to encouraged tourists.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Vince

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The NYT had a piece on photographers on public property getting
arrested, including several examples in NYC.  (Some of this is old
news).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?ref=nyregion
Is the model board of an NYCT tower considered "sensitive" that it
should not be photographed?

Again TA personnel being overly protected

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In the railroad newsgroup there was an article from the Washington
Post describing numerous examples of problems photographers had in DC.
There are books published explaining the legal rights and
responsibilities of photographers and I found it very helpful.  There
are some restrictions on the right of photography in public places,
and individuals have some right of privacy even in a public place.
(Most of all this is common sense).

Oh cut the crap we all know its been legal for years to shoot on the
NYCTA. This is cops etc making it up as they go along

Cops who should know the rules but don't, or just ignore them.

Post by Vince
A right to privacy even in a public place? Thats a hard one
Many years ago I had a friend who didn't like his picture taken, (he
give in later on however) anyway another friend told him of how a
neighbor shot him when he was on the street with her movie camera.
"Oh I can sue her for invasion of privacy"
WRONG!

Nope, it is not invasion of privacy.

Post by Vince
For one thing what is public and what isn't?
Some years back I shot a small wedding in Lincoln Center, where the
couple rented tables at one of LC's eateries.
As it turned out I was unable to use any of the backgrounds inside LC
out doors no problems, what a loss. I think LC is private
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

Are you sure they are not extras, who are getting paid?

Technically, photographers are supposed to get waivers from anyone in
their pictures before publication. I am not sure if this applies to
news photos.

Chris

Post by Vince
In closing this is no was to encouraged tourists.
 vpilutis.vcf
< 1KViewDownload

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Vince
Many years ago I had a friend who didn't like his picture taken, (he
give in later on however) anyway another friend told him of how a
neighbor shot him when he was on the street with her movie camera.
"Oh I can sue her for invasion of privacy"
WRONG!

Nope, it is not invasion of privacy.

Generally speaking it's not an invasion of privacy, particularly
merely taking the picture.

However, there may be issues if the picture is published, especially
on how it is captioned or the context. For instance, if the
publication implied the person pictured was selling drugs and he
wasn't, he could sue.

Post by c***@gmail.com
Technically, photographers are supposed to get waivers from anyone in
their pictures before publication. I am not sure if this applies to
news photos.

I don't have my photographer's legal handbook nearby, but for general
non-commercial uses I don't believe one needs a waiver. That is, say
you take a picture of the interior of a subway car with passengers and
publish it on a train website or magazine. I don't believe you need
waivers from those pictured for such a use.

I forgot the exact title and author of this handbook, but it is an
excellent reference and I recommend it or something like it for any
serious photographer. It explains a photographer's legal rights and
ressponsibilities (there are separate threads on this in the railroads
newsgroup). While much of it is common sense, there are some
unexpected restrictions.

[Vince]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Vince

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The NYT had a piece on photographers on public property getting
arrested, including several examples in NYC. (Some of this is old
news).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?ref=nyregion
Is the model board of an NYCT tower considered "sensitive" that it
should not be photographed?

Again TA personnel being overly protected

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In the railroad newsgroup there was an article from the Washington
Post describing numerous examples of problems photographers had in DC.
There are books published explaining the legal rights and
responsibilities of photographers and I found it very helpful. There
are some restrictions on the right of photography in public places,
and individuals have some right of privacy even in a public place.
(Most of all this is common sense).

Oh cut the crap we all know its been legal for years to shoot on the
NYCTA. This is cops etc making it up as they go along

Cops who should know the rules but don't, or just ignore them.

Post by Vince
A right to privacy even in a public place? Thats a hard one
Many years ago I had a friend who didn't like his picture taken, (he
give in later on however) anyway another friend told him of how a
neighbor shot him when he was on the street with her movie camera.
"Oh I can sue her for invasion of privacy"
WRONG!

Nope, it is not invasion of privacy.

Thats what I'm saying and I told him so at the time, but get this he
claims I was wrong till he heard it from a third person.
This is the same guy that when it was Nov 10, and I remarked the next
day being Veterans as 'MY Day' "Oh no thats only for guys who were in
combat" Mind you now I just got out of the army less then 2 wks before
on Oct 25th then he goes on to repeat something he heard in a John Wayne
war film.

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Vince
For one thing what is public and what isn't?
Some years back I shot a small wedding in Lincoln Center, where the
couple rented tables at one of LC's eateries.
As it turned out I was unable to use any of the backgrounds inside LC
out doors no problems, what a loss. I think LC is private
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

Are you sure they are not extras, who are getting paid?

They are not, as my grand niece was in a shot with Jerry Orbach & Ben
Bratt. Ever see the opening of SHIFT?
They shot that without the people's knowing it using a very long lens
(thats why they all look so close to one another) I knew a few of the
people in that scene.

Post by c***@gmail.com
Technically, photographers are supposed to get waivers from anyone in
their pictures before publication. I am not sure if this applies to
news photos.

Only if you are going to use them for an ad or TV show or movie thats
my whole argument movie and TV doesn't need waivers.
Another example a few months back they were filming in Times Sq and
there was a sign telling the people in so many words if they're in the
shot its too bad.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Vince

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The NYT had a piece on photographers on public property getting
arrested, including several examples in NYC.  (Some of this is old
news).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?ref=nyregion
Is the model board of an NYCT tower considered "sensitive" that it
should not be photographed?

Again TA personnel being overly protected

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In the railroad newsgroup there was an article from the Washington
Post describing numerous examples of problems photographers had in DC.
There are books published explaining the legal rights and
responsibilities of photographers and I found it very helpful.  There
are some restrictions on the right of photography in public places,
and individuals have some right of privacy even in a public place.
(Most of all this is common sense).

Oh cut the crap we all know its been legal for years to shoot on the
NYCTA. This is cops etc making it up as they go along

Cops who should know the rules but don't, or just ignore them.

Post by Vince
A right to privacy even in a public place? Thats a hard one
Many years ago I had a friend who didn't like his picture taken, (he
give in later on however) anyway another friend told him of how a
neighbor shot him when he was on the street with her movie camera.
"Oh I can sue her for invasion of privacy"
WRONG!

Nope, it is not invasion of privacy.

   Thats what I'm saying and I told him so at the time, but get this he
claims I was wrong till he heard it from a third person.
This is the same guy that when it was Nov 10, and I remarked the next
day being Veterans as 'MY Day'  "Oh no thats only for guys who were in
combat" Mind you now I just got out of the army less then 2 wks before
on Oct 25th then he goes on to repeat something he heard in a John Wayne
war film.

How did Memorial Day get to be about veterans, and how did Veterans
Day get to be about visiting cemeteries?

[Vince]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Vince

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Vince

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The NYT had a piece on photographers on public property getting
arrested, including several examples in NYC. (Some of this is old
news).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?ref=nyregion
Is the model board of an NYCT tower considered "sensitive" that it
should not be photographed?

Again TA personnel being overly protected

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In the railroad newsgroup there was an article from the Washington
Post describing numerous examples of problems photographers had in DC.
There are books published explaining the legal rights and
responsibilities of photographers and I found it very helpful. There
are some restrictions on the right of photography in public places,
and individuals have some right of privacy even in a public place.
(Most of all this is common sense).

Oh cut the crap we all know its been legal for years to shoot on the
NYCTA. This is cops etc making it up as they go along

Cops who should know the rules but don't, or just ignore them.

Post by Vince
A right to privacy even in a public place? Thats a hard one
Many years ago I had a friend who didn't like his picture taken, (he
give in later on however) anyway another friend told him of how a
neighbor shot him when he was on the street with her movie camera.
"Oh I can sue her for invasion of privacy"
WRONG!

Nope, it is not invasion of privacy.

Thats what I'm saying and I told him so at the time, but get this he
claims I was wrong till he heard it from a third person.
This is the same guy that when it was Nov 10, and I remarked the next
day being Veterans as 'MY Day' "Oh no thats only for guys who were in
combat" Mind you now I just got out of the army less then 2 wks before
on Oct 25th then he goes on to repeat something he heard in a John Wayne
war film.

How did Memorial Day get to be about veterans, and how did Veterans
Day get to be about visiting cemeteries?

No one said it did, what my friend was saying at the time was that
Veterans Day was only for guys who were in combat and lived.
He didn't know what he was talking about, read the post again.

No one said anything about Memorial Day.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Vince

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Vince
This is the same guy that when it was Nov 10, and I remarked the next
day being Veterans as 'MY Day'  "Oh no thats only for guys who were in
combat" Mind you now I just got out of the army less then 2 wks before
on Oct 25th then he goes on to repeat something he heard in a John Wayne
war film.

How did Memorial Day get to be about veterans, and how did Veterans
Day get to be about visiting cemeteries?

No one said it did,

Nothing to do with anything anyone "said." Just a fact.

Post by Vince
what my friend was saying at the time was that
Veterans Day was only for guys who were in combat and lived.
He didn't know what he was talking about, read the post again.
No one said anything about Memorial Day.

You're not one to talk about changing topics.

[Phil Kane]

Post by Vince
No one said it did, what my friend was saying at the time was that
Veterans Day was only for guys who were in combat and lived.
He didn't know what he was talking about, read the post again.
No one said anything about Memorial Day.

At the risk of being repetitious, "Veteran's Day" was "Armistice Day"
when I was growing up, a time to celebrate the end of WW-I, "the war
to end all wars". Had nothing to do with all veterans, wartime of
not. I do remember the parades that were held on Eastern Parkway in
the '50s, complete with marching contingents of veterans in uniforms
from the Korean War, WW-II, WW-I, and the hit of the pageant, an open
convertible with a Spanish-American War veteran, well up in years,
waving to the crowds, all headed to Grand Army Plaza.

Similarly, "Memorial Day" was known as "Decoration Day", specifically
to decorate the graves of Civil War Union soldiers. When my son was
in the Boy Scouts years ago, they would go to the Golden Gate National
Cemetery and plant flags at the graves there.

But times have changed, and it was necessary to have three-day
weekends in modern times.....

Old joke: Do they have Fourth of July outside of the US? Yes, it
comes between the Third and the Fifth in most countries.....
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Phil Kane

Post by Vince
No one said it did, what my friend was saying at the time was that
Veterans Day was only for guys who were in combat and lived.
He didn't know what he was talking about, read the post again.
No one said anything about Memorial Day.

At the risk of being repetitious, "Veteran's Day" was "Armistice Day"
when I  was growing up, a time to celebrate the end of WW-I, "the war
to end all wars".  Had nothing to do with all veterans, wartime of
not.  I do remember the parades that were held on Eastern Parkway in
the '50s, complete with marching contingents of veterans in uniforms
from the Korean War, WW-II, WW-I, and the hit of the pageant, an open
convertible with a Spanish-American War veteran, well up in years,
waving to the crowds, all headed to Grand Army Plaza.

My dentist when I was little (through the mid-60s, in fact) was a
Spanish-American War veteran. He had a large photo of his unit on the
wall next to his diploma -- from the University of Santo Domingo.

ObTrans (why not?): his office was on W. 73rd St., so I was familiar
with the 72nd St. station on the island where Broadway crosses
Amsterdam.

Post by Phil Kane
Similarly, "Memorial Day" was known as "Decoration Day", specifically
to decorate the graves of Civil War Union soldiers.  When my son was
in the Boy Scouts years ago, they would go to the Golden Gate National
Cemetery and plant flags at the graves there.
But times have changed, and it was necessary to have three-day
weekends in modern times.....
Old joke:  Do they have Fourth of July outside of the US?  Yes, it
comes between the Third and the Fifth in most countries.....

In Canada it's on the 1st and in France it's on the 14th.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
ObTrans (why not?): his office was on W. 73rd St., so I was familiar
with the 72nd St. station on the island where Broadway crosses
Amsterdam.

I stuck with my dentist for years after I moved despite the drive
because I felt he was very good. Anyway, I hated the drive and looked
into taking the train. Unfortunately, his office was a mile from the
nearest station, and worse, I had to change trains with poor
connections to get to that station. I could get down to an
appointment reasonably well, but returning home would've required an
hour wait for a return train due to the lousy connections. (Not
helping was the fact the outbound station platforms had no shelter or
amenities.) If the train had stopped at the station the train ride
would've been much faster (and far easier) than driving, even with the
mile walk.

This remains one of the challenges of commuter rail service--to serve
people who are headed out to the suburbs as opposed to originating
there. Getting to suburban locations from a suburban train station is
very often a pain.

On a trip up to Bronxville I was able to take a Bee Line bus from the
station (after a 15 minute wait) to my ultimate destination, and
Metrocard accepted as a free transfer. However, on my return the bus
wouldn't come for an hour so I had to walk it. (At least they had
sidewalks, many suburban streets don't have them.)

[Joseph D. Korman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Phil Kane
Old joke: Do they have Fourth of July outside of the US? Yes, it
comes between the Third and the Fifth in most countries.....

In Canada it's on the 1st and in France it's on the 14th.

The JOKE isn't asking about Independence Day, but about the calendar
July 4th.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:***@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Joseph D. Korman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Phil Kane
Old joke:  Do they have Fourth of July outside of the US?  Yes, it
comes between the Third and the Fifth in most countries.....

In Canada it's on the 1st and in France it's on the 14th.

The JOKE isn't asking about Independence Day, but about the calendar
July 4th.

And the metaJOKE is answering not about the calendar date, but about
the chauvinistic assumption that everyone's Independence Day has to be
called "The Fourth."

Did you get your sense of humor from Piers Morgan? (On America's Got
Talent this season, he has twice claimed that two of the funniest acts
-- a "magician" who can't do magic, and an "impressionist" who can't
do impressions -- are not funny; whereas Howie Mandel, of all people,
defended them stoutly.)

[Joseph D. Korman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Joseph D. Korman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Phil Kane
Old joke: Do they have Fourth of July outside of the US? Yes, it
comes between the Third and the Fifth in most countries.....

In Canada it's on the 1st and in France it's on the 14th.

The JOKE isn't asking about Independence Day, but about the calendar
July 4th.

And the metaJOKE is answering not about the calendar date, but about
the chauvinistic assumption that everyone's Independence Day has to be
called "The Fourth."
Did you get your sense of humor from Piers Morgan? (On America's Got
Talent this season, he has twice claimed that two of the funniest acts
-- a "magician" who can't do magic, and an "impressionist" who can't
do impressions -- are not funny; whereas Howie Mandel, of all people,
defended them stoutly.)

As you always point out, this is nyc.transit, what other meaning would
the 4th of July have in the joke, other than the U.S. holiday?

We don't watch those lack of talent shows.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:***@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------

[Phil Kane]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:06:19 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"

Post by Joseph D. Korman

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In Canada it's on the 1st and in France it's on the 14th.

The JOKE isn't asking about Independence Day, but about the calendar
July 4th.

In fact, the Canadian holiday is Canada Day (a factoid learned from a
long-ago girlfriend who was Canadian and would expound endlessly on
the struggles between "O Canada" and "The Maple Leaf Forever" as
competitors for adoption as the national anthem - may she rest in
peace).

The French holiday is Bastille Day, and contrary to accepted legend,
Cinco de Mayo is not the Mexican "Independence Day". It just seems
that way.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Phil Kane
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:06:19 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"

Post by Joseph D. Korman

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In Canada it's on the 1st and in France it's on the 14th.

The JOKE isn't asking about Independence Day, but about the calendar
July 4th.

In fact, the Canadian holiday is Canada Day (a factoid learned from a
long-ago girlfriend who was Canadian and would expound endlessly on
the struggles between "O Canada" and "The Maple Leaf Forever" as
competitors for adoption as the national anthem - may she rest in
peace).
The French holiday is Bastille Day, and contrary to accepted legend,
Cinco de Mayo is not the Mexican "Independence Day".  It just seems
that way.

Cinco de Mayo is, I heard recently, an American holiday but not a
Mexican one.

[Jimmy]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cinco de Mayo is, I heard recently, an American holiday but not a
Mexican one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_Mayo says that in Mexico, it's
primarily celebrated in the state of Puebla.

Jimmy

[Phil Kane]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:28:42 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cinco de Mayo is, I heard recently, an American holiday but not a
Mexican one.

I wouldn't doubt it. It celebrates the victory over the French troops
who tries to invade in the 1840s (?)

Just like "Mexican food" is really Tex-Mex. I have a close and
long-time friend who is a first generation Mexican-American and her
kids used to bug her to make "Mexican food" expecting to get the same
stuff that Taco Bell sells....the problem is that she doesn't /like/
that version of "Mexican food".
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

[Joseph D. Korman]

Post by Phil Kane
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:28:42 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cinco de Mayo is, I heard recently, an American holiday but not a
Mexican one.

I wouldn't doubt it. It celebrates the victory over the French troops
who tries to invade in the 1840s (?)
Just like "Mexican food" is really Tex-Mex. I have a close and
long-time friend who is a first generation Mexican-American and her
kids used to bug her to make "Mexican food" expecting to get the same
stuff that Taco Bell sells....the problem is that she doesn't /like/
that version of "Mexican food".
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

Here's the page I link to from my web page on 5/5:

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

It is also my personal holiday, as I retired May 5, 2005!
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:***@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------

[danny burstein]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
ObTrans (why not?): his office was on W. 73rd St., so I was familiar
with the 72nd St. station on the island where Broadway crosses
Amsterdam.

in the Central Savings Bank building? Mine was there...

obtransit: there were different bus companies running
down columbus/up amsterdam compared to the one on Broadway.
If I remember correctly...

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by danny burstein

Post by Peter T. Daniels
ObTrans (why not?): his office was on W. 73rd St., so I was familiar
with the 72nd St. station on the island where Broadway crosses
Amsterdam.

in the Central Savings Bank building? Mine was there...

No, in one of the large apartment buildings on the north side of 73rd
near Columbus. Dr.Nathaniel Weg.

Post by danny burstein
obtransit: there were different bus companies running
down columbus/up amsterdam compared to the one on Broadway.
If I remember correctly...

[Vince]

Post by Phil Kane

Post by Vince
No one said it did, what my friend was saying at the time was that
Veterans Day was only for guys who were in combat and lived.
He didn't know what he was talking about, read the post again.
No one said anything about Memorial Day.

At the risk of being repetitious, "Veteran's Day" was "Armistice Day"
when I was growing up, a time to celebrate the end of WW-I, "the war
to end all wars". Had nothing to do with all veterans, wartime of
not. I do remember the parades that were held on Eastern Parkway in
the '50s, complete with marching contingents of veterans in uniforms
from the Korean War, WW-II, WW-I, and the hit of the pageant, an open
convertible with a Spanish-American War veteran, well up in years,
waving to the crowds, all headed to Grand Army Plaza.
Similarly, "Memorial Day" was known as "Decoration Day", specifically
to decorate the graves of Civil War Union soldiers. When my son was
in the Boy Scouts years ago, they would go to the Golden Gate National
Cemetery and plant flags at the graves there.
But times have changed, and it was necessary to have three-day
weekends in modern times.....
Old joke: Do they have Fourth of July outside of the US? Yes, it
comes between the Third and the Fifth in most countries.....
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

Yeah well Phil with Veteran's Day is always Nov 11, so not many three
day weekends.

Recall back in the early 1980s Vets Day was in Oct for a while?

[Phil Kane]

Post by Vince
Recall back in the early 1980s Vets Day was in Oct for a while?

According to the Source of All Truth (Wikipedia) it was celebrated
on the fourth Monday of October from 1971 until it was moved back to
November 11 in 1978. The "three day weekend" business.....

ObNYC Transit - do the buses and trains operate on "holiday schedule"
on that day? They don't here.
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[Analysis&Solutions]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Vince
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

Are you sure they are not extras, who are getting paid?

I happened to walk by L&O shooting once around Rockefeller Center. They
had staff holding up large signs around the perimeter saying something
like "By walking past this sign you give consent to be filmed..."

--Dan

[Vince]

Post by Analysis&Solutions

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Vince
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

Are you sure they are not extras, who are getting paid?

I happened to walk by L&O shooting once around Rockefeller Center. They
had staff holding up large signs around the perimeter saying something
like "By walking past this sign you give consent to be filmed..."
--Dan

I see

[Phil Kane]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:31:37 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Analysis&Solutions
I happened to walk by L&O shooting once around Rockefeller Center. They
had staff holding up large signs around the perimeter saying something
like "By walking past this sign you give consent to be filmed..."

Good old "implied consent", Just like the railroads give "implied
consent" to railfans listening to rail communications by not objecting
to it across the board as required by the Communications Act.
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Vince
Oh cut the crap we all know its been legal for years to shoot on the
NYCTA. This is cops etc making it up as they go along

Not true. One used to require a pemit.

AFAIK, using a tripod or firing a flash can cause trouble--as it
should--depending on the circumstances. (See the SEPTA photography
policy.) Likewise, one isn't permitted to enter restricted areas.
The point is that they're restrictions, common sense to be sure, but
restrictions none the less.

Post by Vince
A right to privacy even in a public place? Thats a hard one

An airline pilot was just arrested for taking a picture of someone in
the concourse of the airport for violating the person's privacy. more
below.

People _do_ have some legal privacy rights in public spaces. Again,
common sense applies and generally a subway photographer wouldn't have
any problems, but there are a few restrictions. In some states, like
Texas, the law is rather broad. Actually, this is nothing new,
photojournalists have for years had to discard photographs (not
publish them) because they inadvertently caught a little too much in
the picture.

Post by Vince
For one thing what is public and what isn't?

The classic example is a woman's skirt being blown up by a subway
train passing underneath. You can't publish that (without consent).
Again, it's basically common sense.

Another restriction is using photos for commercial purposes, such as
advertising, without consent of the people portrayed.

[Vince]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Vince
Oh cut the crap we all know its been legal for years to shoot on the
NYCTA. This is cops etc making it up as they go along

Not true. One used to require a pemit.

Yes years ago like the late 1960s
Hey friend I am a photographer remember?


AFAIK, using a tripod or firing a flash can cause trouble--as it

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
should--depending on the circumstances. (See the SEPTA photography
policy.) Likewise, one isn't permitted to enter restricted areas.
The point is that they're restrictions, common sense to be sure, but
restrictions none the less.

Now thats a fact, tripods can be a no, no, flas has never been a
problem for me.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Vince
A right to privacy even in a public place? Thats a hard one

An airline pilot was just arrested for taking a picture of someone in
the concourse of the airport for violating the person's privacy. more
below.

Some one was a bit overzealous

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
People _do_ have some legal privacy rights in public spaces. Again,
common sense applies and generally a subway photographer wouldn't have
any problems, but there are a few restrictions. In some states, like
Texas, the law is rather broad. Actually, this is nothing new,
photojournalists have for years had to discard photographs (not
publish them) because they inadvertently caught a little too much in
the picture.

Oh please Texas?

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Vince
For one thing what is public and what isn't?

The classic example is a woman's skirt being blown up by a subway
train passing underneath. You can't publish that (without consent).
Again, it's basically common sense.
Another restriction is using photos for commercial purposes, such as
advertising, without consent of the people portrayed.

As I said in the other post and yet look what the movie & TV people do

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
An airline pilot was just arrested for taking a picture of someone in
the concourse of the airport for violating the person's privacy.  more
below.

   Some one was a bit overzealous

Yes, the airline pilot was "overzealous" in taking the picture that he
did.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
People _do_ have some legal privacy rights in public spaces.  Again,
common sense applies and generally a subway photographer wouldn't have
any problems, but there are a few restrictions.  In some states, like
Texas, the law is rather broad.  

Oh please Texas?

Sec 21.15 of the Texas penal code.


I found the book. It is "Legal Handbook for Photographers" by Bert
Krages. I recommend it or a book like it.

[Vince]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Vince

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
An airline pilot was just arrested for taking a picture of someone in
the concourse of the airport for violating the person's privacy. more
below.

Some one was a bit overzealous

Yes, the airline pilot was "overzealous" in taking the picture that he
did.
No the law was being overzealous.

Post by Vince

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
People _do_ have some legal privacy rights in public spaces. Again,
common sense applies and generally a subway photographer wouldn't have
any problems, but there are a few restrictions. In some states, like
Texas, the law is rather broad.

Oh please Texas?

Sec 21.15 of the Texas penal code.
hmmm
I found the book. It is "Legal Handbook for Photographers" by Bert
Krages. I recommend it or a book like it.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Vince
As I said in the other post and yet look what the movie & TV people do

I believe the rules are different for movie and TV people. For one
thing, given the complexity of their operations, they normally need
special permits because they'll be disrupting sidewalk and street
traffic. (As would a hobbyist if he were to bring out a lot of
equipment to a public sidewalk, such as light stands.)

In any event, I'm not concerned with them; they undoubtedly have high
paid media specialist lawyers to advise them.

I'm concerned about the rights and responsibilities of an individual
hobbyist taking pictures of trains, subways, and buildings and
publishing them on the web or hobbyist magazines. There _are_ a few
restrictions, mostly common sense (e.g. don't use a telephoto lens to
look into someone's bedroom window, don't use misleading captions if
publishing a picture, don't trespass on restricted areas or private
property.) Courtesy, respect, and discretion are important, too;
sometimes it is better not to take a picture even if it is 'legal' to
do so.

[Vince]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Vince
As I said in the other post and yet look what the movie & TV people do

I believe the rules are different for movie and TV people. For one
thing, given the complexity of their operations, they normally need
special permits because they'll be disrupting sidewalk and street
traffic. (As would a hobbyist if he were to bring out a lot of
equipment to a public sidewalk, such as light stands.)
In any event, I'm not concerned with them; they undoubtedly have high
paid media specialist lawyers to advise them.
I'm concerned about the rights and responsibilities of an individual
hobbyist taking pictures of trains, subways, and buildings and
publishing them on the web or hobbyist magazines. There _are_ a few
restrictions, mostly common sense (e.g. don't use a telephoto lens to
look into someone's bedroom window, don't use misleading captions if
publishing a picture, don't trespass on restricted areas or private
property.) Courtesy, respect, and discretion are important, too;
sometimes it is better not to take a picture even if it is 'legal' to
do so.

As am I too many times my shooting has been stopped for the stupidest
of reasons.

I have never violated any of the above.


I recall a situation where two sister's family sued a pro who had taken
shots of them coming out of the water in of course bathing suits.
Something about their religion now how could the pro know about that?
They won no less.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Vince
I recall a situation where two sister's family sued a pro who had taken
shots of them coming out of the water in of course bathing suits.
Something about their religion now how could the pro know about that?
They won no less.

Where was the shot taken--public or private property? Was the picture
published, and if so, where and in what context? On what specific
grounds did they win the lawsuit, and under what principle of law? In
situations like this the devil is in the details.

The NYT recently reported on a man who sued a photographer for
exhibiting a picture of said man in a photo exhibit--the man felt it
violated his religion. The man lost because the picture was taken in
a public place (the street).

[Vince]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Vince
I recall a situation where two sister's family sued a pro who had taken
shots of them coming out of the water in of course bathing suits.
Something about their religion now how could the pro know about that?
They won no less.

Where was the shot taken--public or private property? Was the picture

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
published, and if so, where and in what context? On what specific
grounds did they win the lawsuit, and under what principle of law? In
situations like this the devil is in the details.

On a public beach, Yes I recall having to do with travel sites
I don't have all the facts anymore but it was mostly based on the girl's
religion that they were not allowed to be photographed like that.
IMO I think the judge might have been a religious wacko.
You know in a public place with everyone dressed the same religion(s)
shouldn't be a problem.

Reminds of the time an Eastern Orthodox priest was crossing 8th Ave and
I tried to get a shot he did everything he could not to be photographed.
Waving his arm his son blocked my view etc.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The NYT recently reported on a man who sued a photographer for
exhibiting a picture of said man in a photo exhibit--the man felt it
violated his religion. The man lost because the picture was taken in
a public place (the street).

There you go.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Vince
On a public beach, Yes I recall having to do with travel sites
I don't have all the facts anymore but it was mostly based on the girl's
religion that they were not allowed to be photographed like that.
IMO I think the judge might have been a religious wacko.
You know in a public place with everyone dressed the same religion(s)
shouldn't be a problem.

AFAIK (I'm not a lawyer nor expert) one's religion isn't relevant
legally toward being photographed in a public place. However, you
were vague about publication of the photo. I can't help but suspect
the taking of the picture in itself was legal, but there was a problem
with publication. In many situations a model release is required and
apparently here one wasn't obtained.

Post by Vince
Reminds of the time an Eastern Orthodox priest was crossing 8th Ave and
I tried to get a shot he did everything he could not to be photographed.
Waving his arm his son blocked my view etc.

The aforementioned legal handbook also talks about ethics, courtesy,
and the avoidance of confrontation. Taking certain kinds of candid
pictures, while perfectly legal, may invite an unpleasant response
from those being pictured or their associates or family. When I took
photojournalism, the instructor said it's always better to ask
permission first than shoot candidly.

I was taking pictures of a station and some passengers very obviously
did not want to be photographed. I explained to them I was taking
pictures of the train, not the people, and asked them if they could
stand back as the train approached to avoid being in the picture.
Most of the time people will cooperate if you ask them nicely.

(In certain neighborhoods people _want_ to be included in the
photograph of the subway station.)

[Vince]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Vince
On a public beach, Yes I recall having to do with travel sites
I don't have all the facts anymore but it was mostly based on the girl's
religion that they were not allowed to be photographed like that.
IMO I think the judge might have been a religious wacko.
You know in a public place with everyone dressed the same religion(s)
shouldn't be a problem.

AFAIK (I'm not a lawyer nor expert) one's religion isn't relevant
legally toward being photographed in a public place. However, you
were vague about publication of the photo. I can't help but suspect
the taking of the picture in itself was legal, but there was a problem
with publication. In many situations a model release is required and
apparently here one wasn't obtained.

Well it got to be the case here, and I'm not being vague about
publication of the photo, I just don't recall all the details as I
stated earlier. Anyway these two girls were the only ones who bitched.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Vince
Well it got to be the case here, and I'm not being vague about
publication of the photo, I just don't recall all the details as I
stated earlier. Anyway these two girls were the only ones who bitched.

As they say, the devil is in the details, and the details would
indicate whether the photographer was sloppy (eg failing to get a
model release) or the photographer was screwed (did everything
legally).

As mentioned, the handbook states there is very little expectation of
privacy in public places (with some obvious exceptions), so the taking
of a picture should not have been an issue.

Someone could file a claim of "tort of intentional infliction of
emotinal distress or outrageous conduct". This has to "cause
emotional distress so severe that a reasonable person would not be
expected to bear it. A great deal of rudeness or inappropriate
behavior is required before a claim for outrageous conduct can be
expected to succeed. Insults, annoyance, and indigities are not
sufficient to support a claim".

As to publication, there is a distinction between "editorial" and
"commercial" use.

There is also a "tort of inclusion upon seclusion".

[Phil Kane]

Post by Vince
I recall a situation where two sister's family sued a pro who had taken
shots of them coming out of the water in of course bathing suits.
Something about their religion now how could the pro know about that?
They won no less.

A legal principle of tort litigation: you take your victims as you
find them. IOW - even if you do something that would not
affect/offend the average person, if the person in question is
affected/offended, you are stuck with the liabilities of it because
you did the act.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

[Phil Kane]

Post by Vince
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

As a pro you should know the answer - they have surrendered their
privacy and their "reward" is to be seen on TV. "Look, there I am,
crossing the street...."
--

"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[Vince]

Post by Phil Kane

Post by Vince
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

As a pro you should know the answer - they have surrendered their
privacy and their "reward" is to be seen on TV. "Look, there I am,
crossing the street...."
--

Thats besides the point Phil I can be sued if I used a still photo in an
ad and yet for them its ok.

[Clark F Morris]

Post by Vince

Post by Phil Kane

Post by Vince
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

As a pro you should know the answer - they have surrendered their
privacy and their "reward" is to be seen on TV. "Look, there I am,
crossing the street...."
--

Thats besides the point Phil I can be sued if I used a still photo in an
ad and yet for them its ok.

I suspect the difference is that it probably was obvious that there
was a shoot going on and that the bystanders could be in it.

Clark Morris

[Vince]

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Vince

Post by Phil Kane

Post by Vince
Another item: WHY is it ok for shows like "Law & Order", "White Collar"
"The Good Wife" etc to shoot local people and use them on the show
without payment? So much for privacy there.

As a pro you should know the answer - they have surrendered their
privacy and their "reward" is to be seen on TV. "Look, there I am,
crossing the street...."
--

Thats besides the point Phil I can be sued if I used a still photo in an
ad and yet for them its ok.

I suspect the difference is that it probably was obvious that there
was a shoot going on and that the bystanders could be in it.
Clark Morris

Not when they did the opening of SHIFT