<<In texas you'd have to get permission and better have it signed because it's law. could be jail time shooting anyone without their consent.>>
---- I am not attempting to start any flame sessions here, but I believe the usual rules regarding public areas apply in Texas and the usual rules also apply where commercial use for direct profit is concerned, meaning you need a release if you plan to sell the footage of a specific person in a "non-public" area, i.e., a talent release. Any filming activity which causes, or could be CONSTRUED to cause any impediment to normal traffic flow and the ability of persons and property users and owners to conduct normal affairs usually requires a film permit of some type. In other words, if you start blocking "traffic" while setting up large camera and lighting rigs and utilizing a sizeable crew, you will most likely be required to take out a permit. Persons in public areas who are photographed in the normal process of newsgathering cannot seek recourse precisely because they are in a public area. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm What HAS changed, and this affects ALL areas of the USA, is the fact that local law enforcement now has wide ranging and largely UNDEFINED powers to curtail photographing "public" areas under the supposed guise of "public safety" and "national security". Horror stories are cropping up in record numbers of normal private citizens being arrested and jailed, and their equipment and film/tape confiscated because they were taking shots of typical areas that happened to have certain buildings or infrastructure in the frame, i.e., a bridge, waterway, office buildings. What's happening is that law enforcement is being "pumped up" to overflowing with stories of would-be terror suspects taking videos and photos of certain landmarks, and it has naturally started to go to their heads. Blessed with this new found power, they sometimes overstep the bounds of normal common sense and make soviet-style sweeping statements that prohibit the simple act of taking a picture. http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/05/23/no-photography-in-soviet-america-104671.php http://www.carquinezassociates.com/ptlibrary/njtransitcopsandcameras.htm Basically you are on your own if you intend to challenge law enforcement officials who order you to cease using your camera, unless you wish to go through the judicial system, hire a lawyer, sue the agencies and municipalities involved. Technically and legally speaking, confiscation of your gear and your media is THEFT, but it will fall to you to prove that you were NOT proving "probable cause" even though our legal system is SUPPOSED to work the other way around. In other words, if your record is clean, and you were photographing your girlfriend standing in front of a nice looking bridge, you stand a chance at winning such a lawsuit, but you'd better be prepared to deal with the ACLU or a sympathetic and well-versed attorney who knows how to win judgements against city and municipal law enforcement. Think "civil rights" and you're on the right track. It's pathetic to see anti-terror laws abused and co-opted as a "one size fits all measure" and applied to almost anything and anyone, but that's what we get when we support badly written laws like the Patriot Act......end rant. JeffH CHS Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
