Vermont Photographer "Banned"

[Medley]

Editorial usage is protected. In the US, I can take a picture of any business, trademark, person, dog, house, car, etc and use it for editorial purposes without any permission.

Thanks PJ. I had heard that, but it slipped my mind. I stand corrected.

- Joe U.

[chaman]

Well I dont really care if any of you agree or not with me. I wont take any sides with anyone just because he takes nice pics, thats just stupid. Its obvious you can not discuss anything with people who behave like fanboys....Ive had it, really. I think there are other photography sites out there for me. Its obvious too i wont have any non-biased feedback about things i want to learn now so I move on. Have fun talking crap about my posts and enjoy yourselves.

Please do as you please with my membership here, I prefer to have it terminated.

Thanks

[Photo-John]

If anyone is interested, the "banned photographer" told his side of the story in a post on flickr.

http://bit.ly/d6IbAz

Thanks for sharing that link. That adds a lot. Based on what I know of the law and the tone of his Flickr post, I think he seems legit and not at all creepy. According to his post, he made the unintended mistake of accidentally photographing the angry manager a second time and that's when things really blew up. But it still doesn't appear that he did anything unethical or illegal - unless he was shooting on private property, like in an outdoor mall. If that's the case, then the property owner can ask him to stop or leave. I'm not sure about requesting that the photos be deleted.

[draymorton]

Thanks for sharing that link. That adds a lot. Based on what I know of the law and the tone of his Flickr post, I think he seems legit and not at all creepy. .

As I was telling another member of this forum, a VT-based photographer friend of mine knows this guy and claims that he is, in fact, legit, professional, respectful, well-intentioned, etc.

Well I dont really care if any of you agree or not with me. I wont take any sides with anyone just because he takes nice pics, thats just stupid. Its obvious you can not discuss anything with people who behave like fanboys....Ive had it, really. I think there are other photography sites out there for me. Its obvious too i wont have any non-biased feedback about things i want to learn now so I move on. Have fun talking crap about my posts and enjoy yourselves.

Perhaps that's a little rash? At least people have been acknowledging your posts.

And, FWIW, it doesn't seem (to me, anyway) that anyone's defending him simply because they like his work. Not sure where you got that.

[draymorton]

Funny quote from an out-of-control thread on another photography forum:

The photographer looks a little chubby. I wonder if he was more buff if some of the girls or women who are "creeped out" would instead be turned on or flattered and the issue wouldn't exist. The whole thing sounds fishy to me.....

[Medley]

Well I dont really care if any of you agree or not with me. I wont take any sides with anyone just because he takes nice pics, thats just stupid. Its obvious you can not discuss anything with people who behave like fanboys....Ive had it, really. I think there are other photography sites out there for me. Its obvious too i wont have any non-biased feedback about things i want to learn now so I move on. Have fun talking crap about my posts and enjoy yourselves.

Please do as you please with my membership here, I prefer to have it terminated.

Thanks

Sorry to see you go chaman. I don't think that we were trying to rail against you. Speaking only for myself, it was interesting to see this from the perspective of a different culture. Still, the alleged offense was committed in the US, and is therefor subject to US law, which pretty clearly defines his actions as legal (again, in my opinion).

Best of luck to you in future endeavors.

- Joe U.

[CaraRose]

Well I dont really care if any of you agree or not with me. I wont take any sides with anyone just because he takes nice pics, thats just stupid. Its obvious you can not discuss anything with people who behave like fanboys....Ive had it, really.

I don't see anyone acting like fanboys.

I know my entire approach to this issue is looking at what evidence is provided and what the laws are regarding the rights of both the woman and the photographer. As of now, the evidence provided shows that the photographer was well within his rights. Just because someone found him 'creepy' doesn't make what he's doing illegal. There's a lot of things that I find people doing that's creepy. Very rarely is any of it illegal.

[OldClicker]

Funny quote from an out-of-control thread on another photography forum:

Also from another forum:

"He forgot the golden rules:

*Be Handsome
*Be Attractive
*Don't Be Un-Attractive"

It seems to me his only crime is being a middle age, 'Un-Attractive' guy. - TF

[Medley]

Also from another forum:

"He forgot the golden rules:

*Be Handsome
*Be Attractive
*Don't Be Un-Attractive"

It seems to me his only crime is being a middle age, 'Un-Attractive' guy. - TF

Good Lord, I'm done for!

- Joe U.

[EOSThree]

Well I dont really care if any of you agree or not with me. I wont take any sides with anyone just because he takes nice pics, thats just stupid. Its obvious you can not discuss anything with people who behave like fanboys....Ive had it, really. I think there are other photography sites out there for me. Its obvious too i wont have any non-biased feedback about things i want to learn now so I move on. Have fun talking crap about my posts and enjoy yourselves.

Please do as you please with my membership here, I prefer to have it terminated.

Thanks

Obviously me, and most here don't agree with you, it's not personal, and it's certainly not because I like the photographers work. I haven't seen anyone say that's why they don't agree with you. It's about rights, and losing those rights. It's the foundation of what this country is founded on. As my freedoms are removed in the name of security the whole country moves to something other than what it was founded on.

I agree with the law. So it still comes back to: if you don't want to be photographed, don't go outside. BTW, you still haven't answered on how a photograph can become a weapon. I don't say this to make you feel or look bad, I would prefer you come to the correct conclusion on your own, hence the reason I ask the question, maybe you'll change my opinion.

Photography has become a borderline crime in a lot of peoples minds due to media hype and misguided law "enforcement" by the TSA. Peoples minds immediately go to the negative and imaginations run wild as to what and why a person is photographing.

I am a landscape/architecture photographer, and I rarely photograph people because of this kind of hysteria. I have been stopped from photographing a barn once and that made me check into what the law said on that matter.

Finally, just because I don't agree with you on this subject is no reason for me to withhold information or advice from you. That would be as childish as me quitting this site because I didn't agree with someone on a subject. Diversity is what makes this country, and this site great. We don't always agree here, but I've found this is probably the friendliest photography forum on the web.

[Dylan8i]

his shots are great to... i don't see how anyone cannot side with the photographer.

hes probably talking about my post quoted above.

maybe i should have reversed the order of sentences


i don't see how anyone cannot side with the photographer. his shots are great to...




And yes the photos DO play in to the entire subject, cause if they were of some obscene angle or what not then the subjects could have a case. But showing the photos, and having them be good well composed though you photographs does give him credit ( he even explained the effect he was hoping to get by using a telephoto lens - al beit a 135mm).



also i find it funny that how many thousands f people have now viewed the photo of her, that would have never even heard of her if she hadn't of made a big stink out of it.

[Kokopeli]

The law is indeed clear. If you use ANY of my pics for a business I have legal grounds to sue you and so I would. I may loose, I may win but this attitude is plain abusive when it can be so easily avoided. Maybe people should inform better on how to defend themselves against this suposedly freedom of speech. Whats so hard about a simple thing called consent?? Also the law can prosecute him even more forcefully if he has the brilliant idea of shooting through the windows. You better read more carefully because the law is not on your side %100 of the times as you think.

You are mistaken on this point. The law you are referring to has to do with taking a picture through the window of someone's residence. There, your privacy is protected. If you are on the street, taking a photograph through a window of a business which is open to the public, you do not have the same protections as you do when you are in your home.

As for you leaving this site because you feel your posts won't get fair replies, again, you are greatly mistaken. I have been a part of the PR.com family almost since its inception. I have never seen someone ostracized because of his or her views on a particular subject. You are as welcomed here today as you were when you submitted your first post.

Hope to see you posting again soon.