Vermont Photographer "Banned"

[chaman]

The interesting thing here is that the universal trespass order does absolutely nothing to to stop or even curb the offending behavior. Sure he can no longer go into the stores to buy anything, but that doesn't stop him from camping out in the street 24/7 - which I'd be really inclined to do following receipt of an order like this handed out at my place of work.

Charman, I've been in the position of being asked to delete pics of a private business that I had taken from a public street - I refused too, and metered my behavior to that of the store manager, eventually demanding that she call the cops right then, so they could explain the law to her. If you feel that strongly about people taking your picture without your consent, it's real simple...don't go out in public anymore. As far as the photos, the law is on this guy's side 100%. There are literally thousands of photographers that do what this guys did as a full time profession, not as a lunch time hobby. As far as the trespass order, the store owners are well within their rights to ask for the order, but that does not prevent him from standing with his lens 1" from the store window glass and photographing the interior, so I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, other than some mild form of public humiliation.

Sorry but I will continue getting out of my house.

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.

Im glad this one got shafted because anyone who does this against someone wishes truly deserves getting it. So if you see a guy taking pics of your wife and your kids you will let it go because he is an "artist"? Good luck with that one buddy.

This is my last post on this subject...BTW Im going out tomorrow with my family so sorry....:thumbsup:

[almo]

This is why I photograph birds.

[draymorton]

This is why I photograph birds.

And why I'm thinking about getting into landscapes. Photographing people can be very complicated. Which is why you see so many photographers shooting selfies these days.

[OldClicker]

This is why I photograph birds.

Birds are people, too! TF

[chaman]

This is why I photograph birds.

:thumbsup:

[Loupey]

"...she explains, it’s because the police don’t decide whether to issue trespass orders; they simply issue them at the behest of businesses and property owners...The bottom line is, if a business owner requests that we issue a notice of trespass, we’re OK with that. We don’t require that an illegality happened.”

I've never heard of a universal trespass order. Police are supposed to enforce the law. Sounds pretty dangerous to me if a group of people (business owners in this case) have the power to tell the police to keep someone away that they don't like - someone who wasn't even on their property nor committing any illegal actions.

I think Mr. Scott is only "guilty" of having poor people skills.

[Medley]

... And this is precisely why I love being part of a photography club!

A few years back, I took a road trip out to our local countryside. My purpose was to take some pics of our local covered bridges. There is a 'scenic drive', created and organized by the local townships to promote both the bridges and local tourism.

Long story short, I took a pic of a local business, "Kelly's Machine Guns" because I thought the sign was novel. Chaos ensued. The business owner ended up calling the police "demanding" that I be arrested. I wasn't, but was asked to 'continue on my way' so as not to upset the local businesses.

A few weeks later, our photography club showed up en-masse, to capture the local color. After a short discussion with one of our members, who happens to be a photographer for the state newspaper, you can't BELIEVE how remarkably cordial the local authority was.....

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.

Yes, that's entirely correct chaman. You have every right to sue over the image's USE, the law is VERY clear on that. But you do NOT any jurisdiction over it's existence or creation, so long as it was created from public property. Case law has also made THAT clear.

But, If I USE the image for ANY commercial purpose, I would need your permission. I can't sell the photo without first obtaining your permission, but I can (and have) posted them publicly.

It may interest you to know that Portland, Oregon was recently ordered to pay $40,000 (plus all legal fees) because a local police officer tased a citizen after he refused to stop video-taping an arrest in progress. The officer said he felt threatened because the citizen was 'brandishing a weapon in a menacing manner'. Turns out the judge didn't consider the video camera a 'weapon' and didn't consider holding said camera at shoulder level 'brandishing' or 'menacing'. I'm happy to report that photography is STILL not a crime in the state of Oregon.

However, they are revamping the oversight committee for officer involved complaints in Portland. It seems that until now, all oversight was in the hands of the police chief, who found 'no evidence that excessive force was used by the officer'. I'm guessing the judge disagreed. A citizen's panel is being formed to handle future complaints, much to the chagrin of both the police chief and police union.

See, standing up for one's first amendment rights should never be considered 'abusive'.

BTW Im going out tomorrow with my family so sorry....:thumbsup:

Well, if you happen to see me, and I have a camera pointed your direction....smile.


- Joe U.

[DGK*CRONE]

See, standing up for one's first amendment rights should never be considered 'abusive'.

Well, if you happen to see me, and I have a camera pointed your direction....smile.

- Joe U.

Well put, Joe. :thumbsup:

[Photo-John]

But, If I USE the image for ANY commercial purpose, I would need your permission. I can't sell the photo without first obtaining your permission, but I can (and have) posted them publicly.

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.

[Asylum Steve]

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.

This is precisely why I'm glad I have media credentials, and always have them with me. It gives me great leverage (and confidence) in photographing nearly anyone or anything, anytime, anywhere. Now, usage is another thing altogether, but at least I'm allowed to take the shot.

BTW, there's also a thing called "implied consent", which basically means that if people find themselves in circumstances where they are aware that a story is being shot or at an event that they know is being covered by the media, by staying there they are allowing themselves to be photographed and their photos used editorially without a release.

IOW, if you are in a crowd at a newsworthy or sporting event, or knowingly part of a magazine story, a publication does not need your permission or a release to run the photos...

[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.