Suing photographer

It will be interesting watching this unfold.

https://news.yahoo.com …ured-armed-213300553.html

I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Rumor has it they were quite happy to sue anyone including their neighbors over the ears.

PerfectCaptain wrote in post #19149999
I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Rumor has it they were quite happy to sue anyone including their neighbors over the ears.

I prefer my lawsuits below the ears. Rumor is a bad word.

PerfectCaptain wrote in post #19149999
I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Rumor has it they were quite happy to sue anyone including their neighbors over the ears.

I'm taking the opposite, I think that have a very legitimate lawsuit. The UPI photog was trespassing on their property. Then they are profiting without any waiver, or consent to use those images to do so. I hope they sue the crap out of UPI and win.

That said, had the photog not trespassed, had a legal right to be where they were, AND obtained the necessary consent to use those images for profit, then they wouldn't. Trespass on my property, take photos and use them to demean, belittle, smear my character, then yep, I'm a gonna sue you.

frozenframe wrote in post #19151959
I'm taking the opposite, I think that have a very legitimate lawsuit. The UPI photog was trespassing on their property. Then they are profiting without any waiver, or consent to use those images to do so. I hope they sue the crap out of UPI and win.

That said, had the photog not trespassed, had a legal right to be where they were, AND obtained the necessary consent to use those images for profit, then they wouldn't. Trespass on my property, take photos and use them to demean, belittle, smear my character, then yep, I'm a gonna sue you.

There is a big technicality here. The photographer was only trespassing because they live in a gated community where the street is technically private property (shared amongst the homeowners on the cul de sac). They will have some difficulty convincing a judge that photographing a news event from a street is actually trespassing.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19151964
There is a big technicality here. The photographer was only trespassing because they live in a gated community where the street is technically private property (shared amongst the homeowners on the cul de sac). They will have some difficulty convincing a judge that photographing a news event from a street is actually trespassing.

That street is owned by them, it is not in anyway public. I've watched numerous interviews of McKloskey, and he paid to have that "street" put in. Plus the gate being torn down, along with the no trespassing signs, are enough to show in any "legitimate" court of law, the people including the photographer were trespassing to be on the inside of the gate/fence.
Oh it matters not if someone is "photographing a news event", that does not provide them the right to trespass.

Here is a discussion of the issue pre-McKloskey:

https://www.rcfp.org …09/trespassing-get-story/

Courts have been lenient about trespass for reporters following an ongoing story. They may get some relief, if they wind up in a sympathetic court, for a simple trespass charge. But I suspect that won't buy them much. One would have to look at the local precedents.

With regards to use of the images by UPI or the photographer, the McKloskey will get nothing. Copyright is a federal right that cannot be abridged by state law. That's already been through the court specifically with regard to trespassing to get a picture.

https://www.photoattor​ney.com …raphing-private-property/

frozenframe wrote in post #19151968
That street is owned by them, it is not in anyway public. I've watched numerous interviews of McKloskey, and he paid to have that "street" put in. Plus the gate being torn down, along with the no trespassing signs, are enough to show in any "legitimate" court of law, the people including the photographer were trespassing to be on the inside of the gate/fence.
Oh it matters not if someone is "photographing a news event", that does not provide them the right to trespass.

That street has been there for literally more than a hundred years. They're paying for part of the maintenance.

Interesting indeed. I'm a licensed attorney and this isn't anywhere near cut and dry.

https://usa.streetsblo​g.org …ti-blackness-in-st-louis/

I thought they were already exonerated ? I haven't read any news, and I have cut my cables in 2016.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19151964
There is a big technicality here. The photographer was only trespassing because they live in a gated community where the street is technically private property (shared amongst the homeowners on the cul de sac). They will have some difficulty convincing a judge that photographing a news event from a street is actually trespassing.

And you just blew your own defense claim, the photographer was not on a street, but on private property owned by the community association which the plaintiff's are a member of had he been outside the community gates, using along lens, he would have been on a street, but he didn't do that, he trespassed therefore he is on thin legal ice while trying to defend his illegal activities.

frozenframe wrote in post #19151968
.
McKloskey ..... paid to have that "street" put in.
.

.
Is that really true, or was it already there before he was even born? . Paying for periodic maintenance to be done is not the same as paying for the initial design and construction. . You said he actually paid to "have that street put in". . Is that actually true, or not?


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19277793
.
Is that really true, or was it already there before he was even born? . Paying for periodic maintenance to be done is not the same as paying for the initial design and construction. . You said he actually paid to "have that street put in". . Is that actually true, or not?

.

No, that's not true. The street (and the neighborhood) is over a hundred years old as a resident-maintained neighborhood.

RDKirk wrote in post #19277900
No, that's not true. The street (and the neighborhood) is over a hundred years old as a resident-maintained neighborhood.

And it is private property, not a public street, once a community goes gated, what is within those gates becomes taxable as personal property and is no longer public property.

That is one of the reasons older municipalities love it when a developer buys up a development and gates it, they get all of those sidewalks, roads and bridges off their books and on the tax rolls and they don't have to maintain or hold any liability for them anymore, such becomes the "communities" problem.

But it all becomes private property and as such if someone is inside the gated area without being invited by a resident they are trespassing and in many areas like here in Florida if no trepassing signs are posted they can be arrested, without being warned they are trespassing or given the option of leaving.

Channel One wrote in post #19277920
And it is private property, not a public street, once a community goes gated, what is within those gates becomes taxable as personal property and is no longer public property.

That is one of the reasons older municipalities love it when a developer buys up a development and gates it, they get all of those sidewalks, roads and bridges off their books and on the tax rolls and they don't have to maintain or hold any liability for them anymore, such becomes the "communities" problem.

But it all becomes private property and as such if someone is inside the gated area without being invited by a resident they are trespassing and in many areas like here in Florida if no trepassing signs are posted they can be arrested, without being warned they are trespassing or given the option of leaving.

Those particular St Louis communities are rather different. No, they are not considered conventional "private property." They are the product of a peculiar local convention more than a century old to allow certain neighborhoods to remain segregated. The streets are city property but legally held private to the residents and maintained by the residents.

Even with that, there are legal precedents that do not normally hold the press guilty of trespassing when bona fide news events occur on private property.

Both are issues that are arguable in court to determine how they impact this particular case.