DSLRUsers.com

well worth a read........

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/photograp ... s-not.html

A fascinating read. How on earth do you stumble on things like this Bernie?

I refer you to my signature........

and more interesting reading.......

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

this reminds me, I havent been rousted by the cops in ages.
funnily enough since I havent been using the monopod. seems the camera and pod looks like a rpg7 but handheld or tripod doesnt. go figure.

thanks for the link. amusing reading.

Steve

They should attach legal documents to cameras when you buy them these days, stating that all things considered, you can't actually use them anywhere anymore!!!

Anyone who caves in to the public when not doing anything wrong just assists to perpetuate the myth.
Stand up for your rights or you'll lose them.

stubbsy wrote:A fascinating read. How on earth do you stumble on things like this Bernie?

big pix wrote::lol: I refer you to my signature........

My guess is off of <a href="http://www.boingboing.net">Boing Boing</a>?
<a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/18/hilarious_hijinx_wit.html">here</a> is the article in question

The Krage stuff is very useful. I take photos in Washington D.C. a lot as it is an amazing city for architecture, but I am sure one day I will get nabbed. I was really tempted to take a shot of the FBI building, as it has about 20 huge US flags along one wall, and is visually quite impressive, but thought better of it. There are lots of photographers in that city, but I am always careful about taking photos of government buildings. I want to go to NY as well for a side trip, as I am sure there will be lots of photo opportunties, although that is another city where you have to be careful about what you photograph. As you drive into the city they have a huge sign saying that filming is not permitting in the city without prior approval, and they banned photography on the subway, although they may have repealed that.
I am sure it helps a little that I am about as fair skinned as you can get and look like am American (I need to lose some weight). Actually, I mainly want to go to NY to visit B&H photo. Must remember to cut credit card in half first though.

I've taken to carrying a few copies of this:
http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
in with my model releases. It takes a whole A4 but I only need a few of them, most people just read the first few lines and go "oh, I didn't know that but it makes sense". I've only once been threatened by anyone for taking photos, and that turned out ok once the Police got involved.

thanks for the link moz, certainly made for interesting reading (helpful that it is local information too).

Might have to print one of those summary sheets and stick it in the camera bag - You can't be too careful these days

Keep in mind that we are talking about an incident in the USA, although as far as I can tell, most of this would apply here in Aus'.

Of course we do not have a "Bill of Rights" here so I get sick of people screaming about their "rights" and then not being able to explain what "rights" they are talking about.

I was once shooting an exterior section of the Exhibition Building (Jeff's Shed) here in Melb and was approached by a security guard who said i was standing on private property and could not shoot from there. He then helpfully pointed out that if I moved about 2mtrs I would be on the public footpath and could shoot as much as I liked.

I also believe that we are not allowed to shoot on the main CBD railway stations here in Melbourne without first getting permission, although to do so without permition is not actually illegal.

moz wrote:http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml

Now, *that's* a useful link! Thanks very much for posting!

Cheers
Steffen.

big pix wrote:well worth a read........

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/photograp ... s-not.html

Excellent link, thanks Bernie.

I love Thomas Hawk's attitude and approach. Very inspiring.

There is a real problem with security people and others believing that the mood in these terrorism focussed times
is such that they are entitled to make any demands on people that tickles their fancy. The irony is that their behaviour
is more that of a terrorist than those being harrassed.

Anyway, we know all this and we have discussed ad nauseum. But it can't be let go - Thomas Hawk's example is one
to be emulated.

Thanks for the link (which I have printed out and put in my camera bag).

I have yet to be challenged by a member of the public for taking images through street photography but over the years I have often been asked to justify taking candid images from fellow photographers As long as my images do not demean anyone in any way (and they don't), I cannot see why I have to ask their permission.


Cheers
Sheila

Good reading Bernie, I too have downloaded the 2 page pdf from 4020.net and will keep it near the camera.

An interesting read, quite humerous in fact...

Very interesting read!

Shame on the councils who ban parents from taking photos of their own children at carnivals, under the fallacious pretext that those events take place on council property...

Link.

I'm tempted to try pushing for a decision on whether it's legally risky to act with the assumption that someone is a pedophile.
Could that be defamatory?

whiz wrote:I'm tempted to try pushing for a decision on whether it's legally risky to act with the assumption that someone is a pedophile.
Could that be defamatory?

Probably not.

If, in discussing your rights (or privileges) to shoot, they called you one, that would probably be a different story. Certainly, I would probably be framing some aspects of my conversation in order to ensure that they did make that point clear olne way or another.

And were that point made in one way, they would certainly need to be finding cause to explain themselves.

Link wrote:Shame on the councils who ban parents from taking photos of their own children at carnivals, under the fallacious pretext that those events take place on council property...

Link,

I am trying to understand where you are coming from here. "Falacious Pretext..."?

I assume that the carnivals that you are referring to are the ones that take place at facilities that are run by the council and you argue that those facilities are in fact the property of the rate payer.

Cheers

Matt

moz wrote:I've taken to carrying a few copies of this:
http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
in with my model releases. It takes a whole A4 but I only need a few of them, most people just read the first few lines and go "oh, I didn't know that but it makes sense". I've only once been threatened by anyone for taking photos, and that turned out ok once the Police got involved.

That article is GOLD i tells ya!

I'm going to print some copies of the summary, laminate one copy and make myself some business cards.

Geoff

whiz wrote:I'm tempted to try pushing for a decision on whether it's legally risky to act with the assumption that someone is a pedophile.
Could that be defamatory?

Whiz,

I would like to see the outcome of that one. A taped admission from a senior councillor or mayor would be good.

Fortunately for me, the Territory is still one of the few places where I can go about your business without having the law, council or anyone else who sticks their face coming down on me.

Cheers

MattC wrote:

whiz wrote:I'm tempted to try pushing for a decision on whether it's legally risky to act with the assumption that someone is a pedophile.
Could that be defamatory?

Whiz,

I would like to see the outcome of that one. A taped admission from a senior councillor or mayor would be good.

Fortunately for me, the Territory is still one of the few places where I can go about your business without having the law, council or anyone else who sticks their face coming down on me.

Cheers

I doubt it could be taped. If he taped it without the councillor's permission he'd be in the poo, and if he asked to record the conversation no doubt the politician would be running away and dodging questions faster than you can say 'photography'.

Well aware of the legal side of recording audio, but it would be interesting never the less.

Cheers

MattC wrote:

Link wrote:Shame on the councils who ban parents from taking photos of their own children at carnivals, under the fallacious pretext that those events take place on council property...

Link,

I am trying to understand where you are coming from here. "Falacious Pretext..."?

I assume that the carnivals that you are referring to are the ones that take place at facilities that are run by the council and you argue that those facilities are in fact the property of the rate payer.

Cheers

Matt

I'm not familiar with the ownership details... It just seems unfair to me that councils can bar parents from taking photos of their own kids at carnivals, no matters who own what.

Link.

Link, no worries. I think that 99.9999% of the population would agree on that one. The odd ones out appear to be councilors.

Cheers

gleff wrote:I doubt it could be taped. If he taped it without the councillor's permission

I find that my T shirt with "this area is under covert audio and video surveillance" front and back is quite useful for jobs like this. I believe that it covers the legal requirements as well as making a political statement.

gstark wrote:

whiz wrote:I'm tempted to try pushing for a decision on whether it's legally risky to act with the assumption that someone is a pedophile.
Could that be defamatory?

Probably not.

If, in discussing your rights (or privileges) to shoot, they called you one, that would probably be a different story. Certainly, I would probably be framing some aspects of my conversation in order to ensure that they did make that point clear olne way or another.

And were that point made in one way, they would certainly need to be finding cause to explain themselves.

I find that the most fun is asking people questions about exactly WHY I can't do something until it comes down to exactly why they THINK that I shouldn't.

People are quite happy to let the "majority" who isn't them, make the moral decisions.

Getting someone to actually say that they think that you might be a pedophile, with no proof is harassment.

Most things can be turned around if you've got a quick enough mind and a pre set expectation of the line of argument.