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 ...
>> It is against Copyright law to image a building without the owners permission.
That’s unadulterated horse crap of a purity seldom seen in this forum. And I’ve seen a LOT of horse crap here.
A few years ago I was living temporarily in an apartment in a pretty rough part of town. When I parked the car, I noticed there was a really pretty sunset. My wife loves those, so I took a few pictures, then went inside.
A few minutes there was a knock on the door, with a belligerent young black guy demanding to know why I was taking pictures of him. Apparently he’d been across the street below the sunset, though I hadn’t even noticed him.
I told him what I’d been doing. To his credit he calmed down real quick and was even a little sheepish about his over-reaction.
I work with infrared and I really doubt that. What the courts have said is that cops can't fly across the snowy city and use infrafred to spot the pot grow houses, then raid them.
If he had arrived looking concerned or puzzled rather than belligerent I'd have strong respect for him.But credit where credit's due...at least he was civil when he left.
No. Just no. Do you really think publishing skyline shots of cities or Google Earth aerial involve getting permission from every building owner?
Yeah, I know a lot of rent-seeking copyright maximalists would like what you assert to be true, but it’s not.
I work with infrared and I really doubt that.
...
I’ve seen some of the infrared conversions, but would you or anyone else be able to see inside someone’s house and publish the photos?
It’s not anymore convincing the second time around.
That's fine. But if you care to interfere with someone else's right to take a picture in a public place then keep in mind that we have a second right that protects the first one.
I’m fully supportive of photographer’s rights, and am aware that most people don’t know those rights, including many police. However, if you’re using a telephoto lens to take pictures inside of people’s houses, I think you’re going to run into problems.
I frequently do "drive by" property valuations and occupancy checks for banks, asset management companies and outsourcers. They involve photos of the subject property, usually from several angles, with emphasis on damages and surroundings in many cases. I have been challenged by homeowners and tenants from time to time, but usually a few words of explanation cool things off. I've also been cut off by a carload of thugs who asked "Wha'fo you takin' my pitcha?" I don't accept assignments to that 'hood any more; don't need to become the next Zimmerman.
Nope. IR reads surface temperatures only. It just doesn’t “see through walls,” I don’t care how many movies there are in which Arnie has to fight a guy looking through walls with an IR scope. They don’t exist. Not ones that look thru walls.
Tech to look through walls may exist, but it’s not IR.
I can make deductions about what’s going on inside a wall, for instance if part of the wall is wet or poorly insulated, but that’s because these conditions change the surface temperature in those areas.
IR will see through smoke and fog quite well. Most plastic materials are transparent or translucent to it, even heavy black plastic. But most types of glass are a mirror.
The above all applies to the IR spectrum most often used in cameras. Other parts of the spectrum might work somewhat different.
I don't think that is true either. The photograph would be a "derivative work" and not a reproduction of the existing art.
Let me know when you sue google street view.
Absolutely untrue. I make my living as a photographer. As long as the photo is taken from public property, the only limitation can be on use. There, the only limitation is for commercial purposes such as advertising where you usually need a property release signed.
News reporting has no such limitations.
Even if there are legal issues, they are civil, not criminal as long as you are not trespassing.
You should see when the transit cops rough up the retired railbuffs for taking pictures of the NJ Transit trains. This is not America.
People like to take pictures of interesting architecture. I've been doing it for years and most of the structures I take pictures of I am never really sure who owns them or what they contain.
Until Homeland Security Shows up and whisks you away in a black windowless van.
The Patriot Act changed a few things.
For 1/30th of a second? How about retaining a retinal image in my memory?
I forget...
From American Society of Media Photographers.
In addition to property-release issues, you also need to think about copyright concerns vis-à-vis buildings if they were built after December 1, 1990. Before that, buildings did not have copyright protection and were thus, by definition, in the public domain. Shoot away.
In general, buildings erected after December 1, 1990 do not pose a big problem either. There is a “photographer’s exception” to a building’s copyright owner’s rights that permits the photography of buildings. This gives a wide leeway to the definition of “building”; everything from gazebos to office towers are included. As long as the building is in a public place, or visible — and photographable — from a public place, there is no infringement of the building’s copyright owner’s rights. This rule includes private as well as public buildings.
Not that it all they cut and dried.
PACA Special Releases List-
As a service, PACA members have compiled a list of properties and objects that may cause problems if shown photographically. Some of the properties and objects are alleged to be covered by trademark, others by contract (i.e. the terms by which a photographer was granted access to the property).
PACA does not have a position as to whether the use (either commercially or editorially) is in violation of any applicable laws, but merely advises users to seek advice from their own legal representation to determine if any additional permissions are required under the circumstances. The list is not intended to be a complete listing of all subjects, but merely ones that particular members have brought to our attention.
(site has a long list of buildings that likely will result in legal action)
Key legal terms
Public space - see 17 U.S.C. 120
interiors are problematic.
Enjoy
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.