Posted on 07/05/2011 8:21:27 AM PDT by camerongood210
A Miami photographer was escorted off a US Airways plane and deemed a “security risk” after she snapped a photo of an employee’s nametag at Philadelphia International Airport Friday.
Sandy DeWitt said the employee, whose name was Tonialla G., was being rude to several passengers in the boarding area of the flight to Miami.
So DeWitt snapped a photo of her nametag with her iPhone because she planned to complain about her in a letter to US Airways. But the photo didn’t come out because it was too dark.
However, once DeWitt was settled in her seat, preparing for take-off, Tonialla G. entered the plane and confronted her.
“She told me to delete the photo,” DeWitt said in an interview with Photography is Not a Crime Saturday morning.
DeWitt, who already had her phone turned off in preparation for take-off, turned the phone back on to show her that it didn’t come out, but deleted the photo anyway.
“I complied with her wishes but it’s not something I would normally do,” she said. “It just wasn’t usable.”
But Tonialla G. wouldn’t let the issue go. She then walked into the cockpit to inform the pilot that DeWitt was a “security risk.”
Next thing DeWitt knew, she was being escorted off the plane by two flight attendants. Her husband followed.
“I announced to the other passengers that I was being removed because I took a photo,” she said. “ I announced that photography is not a crime.”
By this time, she had Tonialla G.'s named memorized, so she didn't even need the photo anymore.
Off the plane, she spoke to a Michael Lofton, a US Airways manager at Philadelphia International Airport, who told her she would not be allowed back on the plane because she was a security risk.
But even though she was supposedly a security risk, Lofton directed her to American Airlines where they supposedly had a flight back to Miami leaving soon.
However, that flight had already departed and it was already after 7 p.m., so there were no other flights back to Miami until the following morning.
“We were expecting to spend the night at the airport,” she said.
They eventually boarded a Southwest Airlines flight to Fort Lauderdale at 11 p.m.
They landed at 1:15 a.m. and had to wake up a friend to drive them to Miami International Airport, about a 45 minute drive, where their car was parked.
“Southwest really stepped up to the plate for us,” she said. “I can’t say enough about them.”
DeWitt is a commercial photographer who graduated from the Rhode Island School of Photography.
You need reading lessons, please please point out were it says it is a felony for a professional photograph to photograph US currency
It’s becoming very clear this is way beyond your ken.
NO wonder you are a governmental employee.
And, she knows better.
Horse sh**! You keep saying this crap but the fact is unless she was going to use the photo to make money she didn't need to get a release, any more than you or I would if we were to snap a photo of anyone in a public place. The woman was well within her constitutional rights and the airline definitely violated her rights.
You must work for an airline or you are connected to them some other way, what? are you a TSA agent?
A “story” is an editorial usage, not a commercial usage. Editorial usage does not require a release.
Given your complete inability to understand a legal concept that has withstood the test of time, you are simply beyond all hope, so typical of a liberal....
Actually you miss the point again. Copyright law states that the creator of a work (in this case a photograph) is the owner of the copyright of that work unless they sign it away. Their ownership of the copyright for that image starts the second the shutter was snapped.
The subject has no rights whatsoever as it applies to the copyright of said photo. PERIOD. The only control the subject h as is to limit or grant release of their image for COMMERCIAL works. Again they have no such rights if the image is sold and used in a editorial context.
Again you prove you have a childish understanding of copyright law, and if someone is paying you to for copyright related work, they are being cheated.
I suggest you do a bit more study before you attempt to comment on these matters. As it stands you are just making yourself look stupid.
Of course that could be your goal...
Only a dedicated capitalist like myself ( a small business owner) arms himself with the knowledge of what is legal and what is not, in the pursuit of running a profitable business.
It’s pretty clear you would not have the first clue ....
Is that what it is?
If that ol'gal had EVER taken a penny for professional photographry (which, in fact, is one of her claims) it's a fair presumption that all of her photographic work is intended for commercial purposes.
I think you were one of the guys who imagined that letter carrier (of fairly recent fame) was going to get fired ~ because of photos. That particular case isn't over yet. He's got his job; back pay; earned leave; total exoneration. The photographer can be sued and I'd imagine the union will help the carrier do that.
He has a different route now.
The woman had a commercial use in mind or she wouldn't have taken the picture.
And whatever the dispute between the gate agent and other customers might of been, it wasn't her business.
Idiot sez:
“Are you telling me you are willing to cheat on your postage believing you won’t get caught?
Is that what it is?”
Sheesh, your inability to read is simply beyond belief.
There is no way in the world you could ever run a successful business.
There’s no way in the world you would ever respect the law. I know your type ~ the whining customer who’s short a quarter million bucks on his postage and he wants a government subsidy and no competition ~ tells me to go chase “those guys” not himself.
“Editorial Use of Stock Photography
Editorial use refers to the use of stock images in an editorial manner — that is, anything of public interest or related to newsworthy events — where there is no benefit, either personal or commercial, by the photographer or licensee.
Normally, in order to use any photograph or image depicting a person, the photographer must get permission from the person. A ‘model release’ is the standard form used to acquire and document this granted permission. This is to protect the public’s “right of privacy” and prevent marketers from using your likeness in advertising. [b]Model releases are not required for editorial use of an image.[/b]”
“What is Commercial use vs. Editorial use?
Generally speaking, “commercial use” means a message intended to help sell a product, raise money or to promote something. An example would be an advertising, promotional, marketing, advertorial or merchandising use. This is in contrast to an [b]“editorial use” intended to report a newsworthy event or illustrate a matter of public interest, for which typically no release is required.[/b]
“After the photo is taken, however, the photographer should be concerned with the person’s right of publicity. You violate a person’s right of publicity when, without permission, you use a photo of a person for your own benefit. The “editorial” use of a photo is not considered a use of the person’s image for your own benefit. “Commercial” use is different because the use benefits the photographer, so you need the person’s consent to use their image. If you get a model release signed by the subject, you are free to use the image commercially, i.e., for advertising.
If an image is used in a newsworthy item then that constitutes an editorial use. In such cases, a person’s rights are evaluated in light of constitutional interests. “Newsworthiness” is a First Amendment, freedom of the press interest and is broadly construed. Courts traditionally have defined public interest or newsworthiness in liberal and far-reaching terms, not limiting it to the dissemination of news in the sense of current events. They have extended it well beyond that to include all types of factual, educational and historical data, even including entertainment and amusement and other interesting phases of human activity in general.
Commercial use of a photograph usually occurs when the picture of the person has been used purely for “advertising purposes.” While the photograph of a person may be used for something that is sold for profit, such as for use in a book or as a photographic print, selling the photo is not the test for a commercial usage. Using a picture of a person in advertising or for trade without consent may violate the person’s right of publicity, especially when it injures the economic interests of the person due to commercial exploitation. If someone looking at a photograph would think that the person in it is promoting or endorsing a product affiliated with the photograph, then the use is commercial. When the photo of a person is incorporated into a product such as a tee shirt, the use is commercial.”
This can go on forever.
The simple fact of the matter is at you don't have the first fricking clue about any of this. Your comments are made from a position of abject ignorance.
But thanks for he entertainment. I've not seen a person as stupid as you for a very long time. You truly are exceptional!
LOL1 you are the typical ignorant public servant, nothing but a drag on society.
You better keep your government job, because you don’t have what it take to make it in the real world....
From your posts here you don’t have what it takes to CHASE your own tail.
Hmm ~ ever do something worth $1 billion?
Just to stick my oar in late, on what basis is a professional photographer “presumed” to be engaged in commercial photography 24/7?
The employee works the gate at the jetway. It's kinda one of those places where you have some security consciousness.
When confronted she lied about the picture.
I'm sorry, one lie is too much in these circumstances.
Given that she claims to be a professional photographer (and has some public reputation) she knew better. Her behavior ~ entirely unproessional ~ followed by that one lie ~ suggests her only excuse was she was taking a picture to use for commercial purposes.
OK I figured it out,...this is photoguy taking to his dog...
http://winningateverything/1996
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-bathroom-picture-arrest-20110705,0,7886320.story ~ another case. Similar in that we have a woman, just out of the blue, taking pictures ~ this time in a public toilet. Her targets are men. Right off hand I think she was breaking a few laws, and certainly violating the privacy of her targets, just like the old’gal in this story walking up, out of the blue, and photographing an employee. Interesting that both of them argue there’s nothing against the law in taking pictures ~ yet there is.
Thanks,..that’s the one...;^)
There is no newsworthiness in taking a picture of the target in this case. She's just an employee on the job standing there doing whatever it is she's supposed to do.
The person taking the picture claims she had a right to take the picture because of a "conflict" of some sort.
Sorry, does not compute. This is private space (the airline rents it), in a public building.
There's no newsworthiness at all ~ just a commercial interest of some kind ~ maybe she wanted a picture of the lady's official ID tag on a chain around her neck ~ to sell to AlQaida.
Your ability to reason is about the same as your IQ...zero.
The gate agent had no expectation of privacy, she was in a public place. The photographer is free to take photos as she sees fit unless there are restrictions in place that says she can’t. You have yet to produce a single bit of evidence that there were restriction. In other words you are simply hand waving, a trait commonly used by losers and the ignorant.
Just because the photograher is a professional it does not prohibit her from taking pictures in public.
Your claim she MIGHT sell here photos in a commercial setting is simply silly.
Idiot to judge...But your honor she MIGHT sell this photo of me for commercial use.
Judge to idiot, Get bsck to us when she does....
Her photo was for personal use, and stays that way until she decides otherwise. At that time she will be limited in how she can sell it due to thelack of a signed release. She CAN sell it as an editorial usage legally.
Upthread you argue personal property rights and here you are advocating eliminating hers on the basis of a whim...that she MIGHT someday sell the photo.
And who are you to decide what is newsworthy or not? A story on crappy gate agents might be very popular. Come to think of it do you think the people who videoed the TSA thugs patting down children got a release? Did they photograph inside a government building? ( heck given your logic news photogs will never photograph inside of the US Capital... right)
You are a walking contradiction. Established law says you are wrong. Attorneys say you are wrong. Stock photo houses, who are in the BUSINESS of sellling images FOR photographers say you are wrong. Professional photographers organizations say you are wrong. You offer NOTHING to support your warped vision of reality other than your wildly waving hands. You look like a character from Angry Birds, which is fitting considering you are a bird brain.
Of course it’s now newworthy and I’m sure some enterprising photographer will find this wonam and take the photo again...and then SELL it to some news source or even the attorney for the professioanl photographer.
And it will all be legal and above board, since the image will not be used in a commercial setting, which of course was the point all along.
Sadly for you, your limited intellect prohibited you from seeing this simple and well established fact.
Your fingers wrote checks you mind could not cash.
If you had a ounce of intellectual honestly you would have admitted you error long ago.
But we must remember, you are just a lowly governmental worker. Intelligence is not your stonng suit.
Thaks for playing. It was a pleasure destroying you.
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.