Posted on 09/12/2014 7:57:34 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
Man Confronts Reporter for Photographing Private Building from Public Road
PINAC reporter Jeff Gray was video recording from outside an indistinguishable building in Jacksonville today when it began speaking to him, a booming female voice telling him he was not allowed to take photos.
The voice, which was obviously coming from somewhere inside viewing him with a camera, almost seemed to be able to hear Gray speaking back, telling him he must walk to the building’s front gate, which he did, careful not to enter the property of the building.
A man then came walking out, acting as if he was going to physically confront Gray, reading the Photography is Not a Crimelabel on his shirt, telling him that it was a crime to take photos of a private building.
(Excerpt) Read more at liveleak.com ...
That guy Anthony Cumio of the radio show Opie and Anthony was taking photos of Times square when this black woman came up to him and attacked him, punched him out accused him of taking photos of her and when he got home he cursed her out in Twitter and he got fired. More of the same. Black attacks white, white gets punished. Liberals accused him of posting “racist comments on Twitter” but he didn’t, he called her a pig and a savage which is exactly what she was.
You’re the guy at the end of the video!
I wondered what his screen name was.
LOL!
The bozos on the building ASSUMED that the photogapher was as naive...and passive as they are...and would therefore...OBEY thier meaningless “commands”....
Bluffs like this are not that uncommon.
“It is against Copyright law to image a building without the owners permission.”
No it isn’t.
I agree that it isn’t illegal. However if the photographer uses the photo to make a profit I could see a possible issue with it. But if a photo is taken from a public area I don’t believe there is a problem.
Forty points lower than Baldwin?
You’re getting pretty close to the bottom of the tank!
Standing on a street and photographing anything visible from that street is perfectly legal.
Shooting over a fence, through a window, or anything that is not visible from the public way can be illegal under local or state regulations.
Of course, very private people dont always agree with these rules.
Absolutely untrue.
I am professional photographer. I started off as a “street” photographer. I know what I am talking about.
Hmmm,I didn't know that that was Baldwin.But IMO Baldwin doesn't have a low *Intelligence* Quotient,he has a low *Morality* Quotient.
Irrelevant. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
Regards,
Yes, some building registered trademarks and the style or design may be protected from copying, FOR COMMERIAL purposes.
You may photograph any building, place or thing from any publicly available space, such has roads and sidewalks. basically if you can see it, you can take a picture of it.
If you intend to or eventually make a profit from the image of the building you MAY be sued.
A great example of this is the Rock and Roll and Hall of Fame. Years ago a photographer took a picture from the street and make t-shirts from the image. He sold these and was promptly sued by the buildings architects, designers and management.
Eventually he won, he took it from a public place and millions of the same images are available on FB and the web. it took years and cost a fortune, but he did win.
It is well established law that photography in public is legal.
The only part that might be illegal is to use photographs of private individuals for profit. To do that, you need a “model” release, or a contract with payment to the model.
Nonetheless, it is common courtesy to secure the approval of photographic subjects when reasonably possible. I always ask parents before I take pictures of their cute kids in public. Some say Yes, some say No. No problem.
Be careful out there!
That’s what I was thinking. WHY was it so important not to take pictures of the building? Something going on they didn’t want people to know?
Yesterday, I took a picture of a homeless encampment in Seattle. They had hung a sign naming their enclave “Nicklesville” in honor of the (former?) Democrat Mayor. I thought that was a funny picture.
The homeless people inside started yelling at me that I didn’t have the right to take a picture.
That’s not true. I was on a public sidewalk. But who really wants to argue with people who stink that bad?
So, after I took the couple of shots I wanted, I left. No need to engage the poor souls.
Next, in Tacoma, there’s a black guy who lives on a bridge that I ride past. He had hung a sign:
“Dead Broke” Just like the Clintons. Accepting “Donations” of $200,000.00 or more.
Got that picture. Funny stuff.
It’s a protected right to take pictures and video from a public street or public sidewalk.
...
Yes it is, but you can’t use a lens or a camera such as infrared that can see more than the naked eye sees.
I am professional photographer. I started off as a “street” photographer. I know what I am talking about.
...
I’m under the impression that the image of a building can be copyrighted.
See #24. :-)
I made a few photos of some “collectable” cars parked in the open on a car dealer’s LOT.....form a public sidewalk....and raised the ire of some poor dumb schmuck who was working for the dealership.
these people are ignorant enough that they MUST assume that we ALL are as uninformed and WISHT WASHY as they are...
More bullsh*t. There is no such limitation in the Federal court decisions and the US DoJ memo on this topic.
Quote: Individuals have a right to record (photograph) in all traditionally public spaces, including sidewalks, streets and locations of public protests.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_ltr_5-14-12.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.