PCStudio
Established
***
you can have any pictures in your private collection , - but
Exhibition , even web - is a Legal Publication of visual media and may require Model Release and Private property release . Even LOGO is a private property : -)
you can have any pictures in your private collection , - but
Exhibition , even web - is a Legal Publication of visual media and may require Model Release and Private property release . Even LOGO is a private property : -)
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
dfoo
Well-known
In the US and Canada (I'm not sure about the rest of the world) unless you are using the image for endorsement purposes (ie: this person thinks that Ford makes a great car!) a model release is not required.
http://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-releases.html
PCStudio
Established
Photostock agency - Model and Property Release required
http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/06/photographing_t.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/07/secret_buildings_you_may_not_p.html
States often have their own rules and regulations and these are often selectively enforced.
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 4316 "Commercial Filming Except when authorized by State Parks, no person shall photograph, videotape or film for commercial (profit and sale) purposes in any unit, or portion thereof, owned operated or administered by the department without a permit from the California Film Commission, pursuant to Government Code section".
http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/06/photographing_t.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/07/secret_buildings_you_may_not_p.html
States often have their own rules and regulations and these are often selectively enforced.
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 4316 "Commercial Filming Except when authorized by State Parks, no person shall photograph, videotape or film for commercial (profit and sale) purposes in any unit, or portion thereof, owned operated or administered by the department without a permit from the California Film Commission, pursuant to Government Code section".
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or the picture is defamatory: "This is a prostitute waiting for a customer at the corner of..." Even describing someone as a Baptist minister could be construed as defamatory if your subject is a militant atheist.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Are you legally required to carry ID in the United States? Because you aren't in the UK. If you're not required to carry it, you can't be required to show it.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
... yes but few policemen have been told that's the case
juno_lau
Established
...
i cant afford another one...,
but i feel all right for just showing an ID,
back at home (Hong Kong), we have to have an ID with us all of the time and the officers have the right to ask for it.
and now,
the only ID with me is a UK driving licence...
so i hope they will treat me as a tourist then
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Lee and Alexandria asked that I refer to the as simply "prostitutes" rather than the less-gracious term "crack-whores" even if they do sell sex to buy crack cocaine.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
Truth is normally a defence, as is consent: at that point, it isn't defamatory. I was assuming that the 'prostitute' in my example either wasn't, or reckoned she could persuade the court she wasn't.
Cheers,
R.
Truth is normally a defence, as is consent: at that point, it isn't defamatory. I was assuming that the 'prostitute' in my example either wasn't, or reckoned she could persuade the court she wasn't.
Cheers,
R.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Roger: I should have pointed out that your example was a good one. I just thought their comments were a bit humorous. Or, maybe this is an example of treating everyone with respect and receiving the same in return.
And, I would not have even mentioned their profession if it was not germane to the photo. This photo was on-line but not included in those exhibited. That exhibit does include a low level drug dealer who acknowledges the fact but is not identified as such since it is not important to the photo.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
Indeed: I didn't mean to come across as humourless, and I was amused by your point. What worries me, though, is the climate of fear some people seem to love to generate. Recently I read one of those Law For Photographers pieces somewhere, and -- surprise! -- the lawyer who wrote it implied that without getting lawyers involved at every stage, you risked being reduced to penury (by lawyers).
You may recall that I have a law degree, and I often think about the old saying about lawyers: it's a pity that 90% of them give the remaining 10% a bad name.
Cheers,.
R.
Indeed: I didn't mean to come across as humourless, and I was amused by your point. What worries me, though, is the climate of fear some people seem to love to generate. Recently I read one of those Law For Photographers pieces somewhere, and -- surprise! -- the lawyer who wrote it implied that without getting lawyers involved at every stage, you risked being reduced to penury (by lawyers).
You may recall that I have a law degree, and I often think about the old saying about lawyers: it's a pity that 90% of them give the remaining 10% a bad name.
Cheers,.
R.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
While there's no blanket requirement to carry ID there is case law that supports detaining people who can't/won't present ID. It's mostly post 9/11 detritus.
I think the subject is similar to online legal resources that tell people they should simply "walk away" from questioning if they feel the officer has no RS/PC.. in reality this would only work after a lengthy process and one might find that police officers choose to ignore both letter and spirit of the law.
Addition: I've been in very few circumstances where you could "set straight" a police officer. If they have already decided how something was going to be done about the only thing that is going to get you out of it is intervention from another officer. No amount of reading legal documents you have on hand is likely to make them snap out of it, on contrary the situation may deteriorate further. This is obviously neither rule nor exception, but something that needs to be considered.
I've been stopped and searched illegally once: I very politely asked what the grounds for stopping me were, and after he had patted me down (still only requires Reasonable Suspicion in US) I asked what PC he had for a full search. Something to the effect of "here's probable cause" was yelled in my ear as he pushed me face first into a wall (handcuffed mind you)
Obviously, I was let go without any charges.. Only damage was to my pride; it would've gone a lot better if I just sucked it up and let them do what they wanted.
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
You make a very good point. My situation with the local police chief occurred at a local fair over the weekend. I quickly commented that was neither the place nor the time to resolve this as it was much better done when he was in his office during normal business hours. Plus, I wanted him to have the opportunity ask the city attorney for legal advice and carefully consider his response. I also knew it was better to communicate strictly in writing for the documentation. A series of e-mails, accompanied by letters containing the same information, brought the desired result.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Sparrow
Veteran
While there's no blanket requirement to carry ID there is case law that supports detaining people who can't/won't present ID. It's mostly post 9/11 detritus.
I think the subject is similar to online legal resources that tell people they should simply "walk away" from questioning if they feel the officer has no RS/PC.. in reality this would only work after a lengthy process and one might find that police officers choose to ignore both letter and spirit of the law.
Addition: I've been in very few circumstances where you could "set straight" a police officer. If they have already decided how something was going to be done about the only thing that is going to get you out of it is intervention from another officer. No amount of reading legal documents you have on hand is likely to make them snap out of it, on contrary the situation may deteriorate further. This is obviously neither rule nor exception, but something that needs to be considered.
I've been stopped and searched illegally once: I very politely asked what the grounds for stopping me were, and after he had patted me down (still only requires Reasonable Suspicion in US) I asked what PC he had for a full search. Something to the effect of "here's probable cause" was yelled in my ear as he pushed me face first into a wall (handcuffed mind you)
In my country PC is Police Constable BTW, and as they work for the state they should therefor explain their actions to me not the other way round unless I've broken the criminal law.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Yeah I know.. should've disambiguified it
Probable Cause=PC.. it's a standard of proof above Reasonable Suspicion
A police officer has the right, in the US to "pat" a person down anytime they talk to someone under reasonable suspicion (can be applied to almost anyone) this is meant to protects the officers safety and look only for weapons. If PC is established, than an actual search is done. This is all under the 4th amendment in or Bill of Rights/Constitution(court decisions based on that amendment) a document we pay less and less attention to every day despite it being one of the best crafted legal works in history.
Our police here have a much different attitude then those I've encountered in Canada, Ireland or Europe (never been to the UK, but have read a lot about how your laws work in regard to LEO) Asking them to "explain their actions" regardless of what laws you feel you have or haven't broken will frequently land you in quite a predicament. (not that I'm saying you wouldn't be in the right, at least ethically)
Probable Cause=PC.. it's a standard of proof above Reasonable Suspicion
A police officer has the right, in the US to "pat" a person down anytime they talk to someone under reasonable suspicion (can be applied to almost anyone) this is meant to protects the officers safety and look only for weapons. If PC is established, than an actual search is done. This is all under the 4th amendment in or Bill of Rights/Constitution(court decisions based on that amendment) a document we pay less and less attention to every day despite it being one of the best crafted legal works in history.
Our police here have a much different attitude then those I've encountered in Canada, Ireland or Europe (never been to the UK, but have read a lot about how your laws work in regard to LEO) Asking them to "explain their actions" regardless of what laws you feel you have or haven't broken will frequently land you in quite a predicament. (not that I'm saying you wouldn't be in the right, at least ethically)
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
If one fails to defend one's rights then the state will abuse them, I feel
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
I totally agree...
I don't think arguing with beat cops is defending one's rights though. Just making it more difficult for them to do what they believe is their job, and making your job or hobby more dangerous.
I've defended my rights by being active in government and knowing my rights for situations when I actually can help myself.
As Bob pointed out, there are better times to seek resolution. At least in the U.S, if you're counting on a police officer to "let cooler heads prevail" you're basically - :bang: