On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:47 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
They're listening to the same corporate lawyers who require electric heaters
to have a specific warning label telling you not to use them while you're in
the bathtub.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12198709
Dave
--
PDML
2011/1/19 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
This is the cop flailing around adding ridiculous charges hoping to find
*something* that will stick in hopes of justifying having stepped on his own
foreskin.
no idea if that expression is old or markworthy but I'll remember it =)
--
PDML
2011/1/19 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
Actually, the cops can arrest you just about anywhere in the world (not
just in the U.S.) simply because you look funny.
true. and detain me for 24 hours before they have to convince a DA
that they have a case. I'm OK with that. Just not with their
From: Boris Liberman
On 1/19/2011 1:04 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
You do not need a model release OR a property release for non-commercial
use of any photograph taken in or from a public place.
Non-commercial use means you are not using the photograph to sell a
product - you can sell copies
From: eckinator
2011/1/19 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
Actually, the cops can arrest you just about anywhere in the world (not
just in the U.S.) simply because you look funny.
true. and detain me for 24 hours before they have to convince a DA
that they have a case. I'm OK with that.
2011/1/19 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
Keep in mind a conviction is not necessarily the final disposition of such a
case.
Often when the accused is convicted at the lowest level of the court where
the charges are first heard, he/she has to appeal the conviction and it is
over-turned
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 04:10:30PM -0500, John Sessoms wrote:
From: eckinator
2011/1/19 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
Actually, the cops can arrest you just about anywhere in the world (not
just in the U.S.) simply because you look funny.
true. and detain me for 24 hours before they
From: eckinator
2011/1/19 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
Keep in mind a conviction is not necessarily the final disposition of such a
case.
Often when the accused is convicted at the lowest level of the court where
the charges are first heard, he/she has to appeal the conviction and
From: John Francis
Also, rather significantly (IMO), the accused was *not* acquitted
of all charges - he was released without any charges being filed.
According to a quote appearing in the legal blog that the first blog
linked to, he said he was acquitted by a jury
That often happens when
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 07:35:16PM -0500, John Sessoms wrote:
While it does happen, I expect in the SF Bay Area case you cite, the
suspect will eventually get his property returned AND receive some
compensation for his trouble.
EVENTUALLY
Not in this case, he won't. The reason the case
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 07:35:16PM -0500, John Sessoms wrote:
From: John Francis
Also, rather significantly (IMO), the accused was *not* acquitted
of all charges - he was released without any charges being filed.
According to a quote appearing in the legal blog that the first blog
linked
On 1/18/2011 2:12 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
It is the sole responsibility of the submitting photographer to obtain
a written release
from any _recognizable_ [emphasis mine] person in a submitted photo.
Don't you have a rule/law in your country whereas if you take a picture
of a person in
Don't think so.
If it is published, you need autorization IMO.
2011/1/18 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com:
On 1/18/2011 2:12 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
It is the sole responsibility of the submitting photographer to obtain
a written release
from any _recognizable_ [emphasis mine] person in a
2011/1/18 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com:
I've a pic in there that shows faces... No problems this far.
Hmmm... It's a bit like driving without a license. No problems as long
as there are no problems.
I have a pic in there too, of two boys from Old Jerusalem playing with
a toy gun; shooting
What you say makes sense, but there is a major problem with such an
approach, as I see it, personally.
Consider that you made a photo of yourself on backdrop of Trafalgar
square and you want to publish it in your blog basically just to boast
that you were there and how good you looked. Now,
As far as I know we don't have a rule or law -- other than the first amendment
to the Constitution. -- that says you can take pictures of people in public.
But we have court precedents. You don't need model releases for pictures or
people taken in public unless they're used for profit in a
On 1/18/2011 2:58 PM, AlunFoto wrote:
2011/1/18 Boris Libermanbori...@gmail.com:
I've a pic in there that shows faces... No problems this far.
Hmmm... It's a bit like driving without a license. No problems as long
as there are no problems.
Well, no, it is not, unless you say that if a pic
You definitely don't need a model release for a picture taken in public and
published in a gallery , a newspaper or a magazine. Thousands of legal
precedents have affirmed that. Even the NY Times, which is hyper cautious
doesn't require that. I shot dozens of people for them at the dream
On 18/1/11, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Well, if you were to sell this picture, then you would be really taking
chances
If this is the case, then every freelance newspaper photographer would
be guilty.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
2011/1/18 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com:
Hmmm... It's a bit like driving without a license. No problems as long
as there are no problems.
Well, no, it is not, unless you say that if a pic of mine is shown somewhere
on the net, it introduces a terrorist threat personally to me.
Traffic
I'm not sure about Israeli law, But if the photo were taken in the U.S., you
would be fine. If the boys parents found out, they could ask you to remove it.
But they couldn't force you to take it down, nor could they take legal action.
There's no debate on that.
Paul
On Jan 18, 2011, at 7:58
The first amendment is a well good rule/law for me... I mean not me
personally, as I am not US citizen, but hmmm, well you surely understand
what I mean.
So, effectively, sand the awkward language I was stating the right thing.
It has to be determined (as in lawyer sense of the word) what is
Gee, did not think of them. Sorry. I stand correct. Thanks, Cotty (the
old and wise /wink wink/)
On 1/18/2011 3:10 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 18/1/11, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Well, if you were to sell this picture, then you would be really taking
chances
If this is the case,
I don't know about Israeli law either. Perchance it is time I found out.
On 1/18/2011 3:11 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I'm not sure about Israeli law, But if the photo were taken in the U.S., you
would be fine. If the boys parents found out, they could ask you to remove it.
But they couldn't
On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
The first amendment is a well good rule/law for me... I mean not me
personally, as I am not US citizen, but hmmm, well you surely understand what
I mean.
So, effectively, sand the awkward language I was stating the right thing.
It has
Oh. Understood... Well, jolly good.
On 1/18/2011 3:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
The first amendment is a well good rule/law for me... I mean not me
personally, as I am not US citizen, but hmmm, well you surely
understand what I mean.
So,
Actually, I work for part of the New York Times and while the newspaper
itself doesn't use model releases all the time - magazines and online
properties owned by NYT that aren't news outlets MUST have model releases.
Even newspapers have been successfully sued when photos are released with
On Jan 18, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Elizabeth Masoner wrote:
Actually, I work for part of the New York Times and while the newspaper
itself doesn't use model releases all the time - magazines and online
properties owned by NYT that aren't news outlets MUST have model releases.
I work for The New
2011/1/18 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com:
Consider that you made a photo of yourself on backdrop of Trafalgar square
and you want to publish it in your blog basically just to boast that you
were there and how good you looked. Now, if what you say applies, you
/cannot/ publish it, unless you
As I said, for the newspaper they don't require it but I guarantee you they
do for their non-newspaper properties. The web property you write for is
part of the newspaper property and falls under the news umbrella.
You were photographing a news story - news stories are entirely different
than
Not under American, law or for that matter most places that draw their
legal systems originally from the British.
On 1/18/2011 7:51 AM, Thibouille wrote:
Don't think so.
If it is published, you need autorization IMO.
2011/1/18 Boris Libermanbori...@gmail.com:
On 1/18/2011 2:12 AM, Ann
2011/1/18 Elizabeth Masoner lizmaso...@bellsouth.net:
There are some exceptions based on photos taken in public places and at
public events. However, these are poorly defined in the law and judges are
notoriously inconsistent on rulings. Most judges take the side of the
person photographed
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:19 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Legally, you don't need a written release to publish a photo in a gallery. That
being said I believe I only have one portrait in the gallery, and I have a
release for that.
The sticky wicket
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:05:27AM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:
As far as I know we don't have a rule or law -- other than the first
amendment to the Constitution. -- that says you can take pictures of people
in public. But we have court precedents. You don't need model releases for
From: Boris Liberman
What you say makes sense, but there is a major problem with such an
approach, as I see it, personally.
Consider that you made a photo of yourself on backdrop of Trafalgar
square and you want to publish it in your blog basically just to boast
that you were there and how good
2011/1/18 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
Under U.S. law, images of identifiable persons in a public place may be used
for non-commercial purposes, where non-commercial is defined as not used for
selling a product.
If you don't want to be in my photo of the Lions at the steps leading to
From: Paul Stenquist
As far as I know we don't have a rule or law -- other than the first
amendment to the Constitution. -- that says you can take pictures of
people in public. But we have court precedents. You don't need model
releases for pictures or people taken in public unless they're used
From: Boris Liberman
Well, if you were to sell this picture, then you would be really taking
chances. But as long as you just show it around - I still see no reason
to worry.
Of course, if one publishes a picture on the net and someone from that
picture asks one to take the picture down, one
On 1/18/2011 3:38 PM, eckinator wrote:
2011/1/18 John Sessomsjsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
Under U.S. law, images of identifiable persons in a public place may be used
for non-commercial purposes, where non-commercial is defined as not used for
selling a product.
If you don't want to be in my photo
From: Cotty
If this is the case, then every freelance newspaper photographer would
be guilty.
They are, but that's getting into a whole new territory.
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3387 - Release Date: 01/17/11
On 1/18/2011 3:56 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Cotty
If this is the case, then every freelance newspaper photographer would
be guilty.
They are, but that's getting into a whole new territory.
They're guilty as sin, but not of breaking the law, normally...
-
No virus found in this
From: Elizabeth Masoner
Actually, I work for part of the New York Times and while the newspaper
itself doesn't use model releases all the time - magazines and online
properties owned by NYT that aren't news outlets MUST have model releases.
You need a model release for commercial use. You do
On Jan 18, 2011, at 6:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Elizabeth Masoner
Actually, I work for part of the New York Times and while the newspaper
itself doesn't use model releases all the time - magazines and online
properties owned by NYT that aren't news outlets MUST have model releases.
On Jan 18, 2011, at 6:04 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Elizabeth Masoner
Actually, I work for part of the New York Times and while the newspaper
itself doesn't use model releases all the time - magazines and online
properties owned by NYT that aren't news outlets MUST have model releases.
2011/1/18 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com:
Well, yes and no. Most of those charges, in the US at least stem from
different statutes. What they probably actually arrest you for is
resisting, then they tack the reliant statute onto that. Which in a
constitutional democracy what else
Yes, so the relevant statute is bullshit. In this case and I quote
Olvera claims that Alderete saw a can of beer on a kitchen counter,
next to Olvera's wallet, and immediately handcuffed him. The
implication is that the officer decided to go with public drunkenness,
then added the
From: Paul Stenquist
Technically, you're right, John. But if her employer insists on a
model release, then she needs a model release. Some publishers
apparently go beyond what is necessary, perhaps on the advice of
lawyers. I think that's unfortunate, because it establishes a bad
precedent, but
2011/1/19 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com:
[...] The implication is that
the officer decided to go with public drunkenness, then added the
photography charge, well actually a miss application of an anti wiretapping
law.
just so i get this right, are you saying he was just throwing the
On 1/18/2011 7:48 PM, eckinator wrote:
2011/1/19 P. J. Allingwebstertwenty...@gmail.com:
[...] The implication is that
the officer decided to go with public drunkenness, then added the
photography charge, well actually a miss application of an anti wiretapping
law.
Plate of spaghetti, hoping
From: eckinator
2011/1/18 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com:
Well, yes and no. ?Most of those charges, in the US at least stem from
different statutes. ?What they probably actually arrest you for is
resisting, then they tack the reliant statute onto that. ?Which in a
constitutional
From: eckinator
2011/1/19 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com:
[...] The implication is that
the officer decided to go with public drunkenness, then added the
photography charge, well actually a miss application of an anti wiretapping
law.
just so i get this right, are you saying he
On 1/19/2011 1:04 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
You do not need a model release OR a property release for non-commercial
use of any photograph taken in or from a public place.
Non-commercial use means you are not using the photograph to sell a
product - you can sell copies of the image, you can sell
Replied off list.
On 1/18/2011 5:04 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Elizabeth Masoner wrote:
Actually, I work for part of the New York Times and while the newspaper
itself doesn't use model releases all the time - magazines and online
properties owned by NYT that
OK - so, apparently I was in 4 years ago... I got a note today...
I'm preparing some stuff to load...
while reading through the faq I came up with this line
It is the sole responsibility of the submitting photographer to obtain
a written release
from any _recognizable_ [emphasis mine]
Legally, you don't need a written release to publish a photo in a gallery. That
being said I believe I only have one portrait in the gallery, and I have a
release for that. (I haven't even glanced at the gallery for years, although I
intend to submit some newer pics when I have time.)
If I
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:12 -0500, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com
wrote:
I know I can submit stuff I took with film... and somewhere I thought I
saw a line that said something about stating
that a photo is scanned... but now I can't find that ...
So you film guys, where did you put that
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Legally, you don't need a written release to publish a photo in a gallery. That
being said I believe I only have one portrait in the gallery, and I have a
release for that. (I haven't even glanced at the gallery for years, although I
intend to submit some newer pics
Brian Walters wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:12 -0500, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com
wrote:
I'm pretty much planning on loading older stuff first... no reason to
load the max amount allowed per week all at once is there?
No. If you load (say) two images, the next time
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:21 -0500, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com
wrote:
So you and Paul aren't following the rules? ;-)
S...
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
--
--
On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:19 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Legally, you don't need a written release to publish a photo in a gallery.
That being said I believe I only have one portrait in the gallery, and I
have a release for that. (I haven't even glanced at the gallery for
60 matches
Mail list logo
