What are my rights not to be photographed

LONDON808 wrote in post #10237778
you can not sell these images for anything commercial

How about if I (typical GWC) happen to see some dramatic rescue and I have my camera. Can I take pictures and sell them to a newspaper or magazine? I know the answer is yes.. So what is the difference?

hairy_moth wrote in post #10237676
Right, a press pass can give you access to restricted space (e.g., sidelines of a sporting event). But the conversation was about photographers in public places. In public places, a GWC has the same rights as a pro.

What I'm talking about is in public places. Most of the stuff my neighbor shoots is bodies laying out on the street or sidewalk in NYC. But police have it blocked off so no one goofs up the investigation. You (or me), as a GWC, do not have the right to go into the crime scene to get a better angle.

You can stay outside the restricted area and shoot from there. But even that, while legal, is probably not a great idea.

hairy_moth wrote in post #10238229
How about if I (typical GWC) happen to see some dramatic rescue and I have my camera. Can I take pictures and sell them to a newspaper or magazine? I know the answer is yes.. So what is the difference?

By legal definition in the US (case law and in some cases state explicit legislation), sale of the image itself is not "commercial use." "Commercial use" means using the image to solicit some other service or product than the image itself.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in the interest of the First Amendment, an artist must be given the right to earn a living on his art. To prevent the artist from selling his art would be an inhibition of his right to free speech.

culturejam wrote in post #10238320
... But police have it blocked off so no one goofs up the investigation....

Even though the site is "public", I would consider an area blocked off by police "restricted," not public -- at least not for the purposes of this conversation.

Either way (semantics aside) a roped off area is not what this conversation was about.

culturejam wrote in post #10238320
What I'm talking about is in public places. Most of the stuff my neighbor shoots is bodies laying out on the street or sidewalk in NYC. But police have it blocked off so no one goofs up the investigation. You (or me), as a GWC, do not have the right to go into the crime scene to get a better angle.

You can stay outside the restricted area and shoot from there. But even that, while legal, is probably not a great idea.

That gets into public safety issues, where the police can also prevent even the press from those areas. Some guy suddenly zooming into NYC from the Omaha World Herald, bona fide as he may be on his home turf, isn't going to get in either---he will need to have been vetted by the police earlier.

RDKirk wrote in post #10238339
By legal definition in the US (case law and in some cases state explicit legislation), sale of the image itself is not "commercial use." "Commercial use" means using the image to solicit some other service or product than the image itself.

Okay, I see the difference.. thanks.

hairy_moth wrote in post #10238229
How about if I (typical GWC) happen to see some dramatic rescue and I have my camera. Can I take pictures and sell them to a newspaper or magazine? I know the answer is yes.. So what is the difference?

A news paper represents factual information and as such photos which are used to represent facts are allowed ,
comerial use is when it's used to make money from some ones image say a magazine add or the like (news papers make No money on storys or photos a paper is paid for by advertising no adds = no paper)

RDKirk wrote in post #10238351
That gets into public safety issues, where the police can also prevent even the press from those areas. Some guy suddenly zooming into NYC from the Omaha World Herald, bona fide as he may be on his home turf, isn't going to get in either---he will need to have been vetted by the police earlier.

Too true. The cops are very selective.

though it's about model releases, this in-depth page should cover what you are asking about.... http://www.danheller.c​om/model-release.html

k8et wrote in post #10238588
though it's about model releases, this in-depth page should cover what you are asking about.... http://www.danheller.c​om/model-release.html

Good read.. Thanks!

So what is it that people expect to be able to photograph that they somehow feel they're unable to for some mysterious reason?

I must live somewhere where every other American doesn't 'cause I simply haven't run into these quasi police-state issues that many seem to feel is the norm.

Maybe I don't "push the envelope" as hard as some folks. Or maybe they push it too hard. Either way, I simply don't run into the kind of "photographic pushback" that is being reported.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10239026
So what is it that people expect to be able to photograph that they somehow feel they're unable to for some mysterious reason?

I must live somewhere where every other American doesn't 'cause I simply haven't run into these quasi police-state issues that many seem to feel is the norm.

Maybe I don't "push the envelope" as hard as some folks. Or maybe they push it too hard. Either way, I simply don't run into the kind of "photographic pushback" that is being reported.

Neither do I. In fact, the cops around here are downright nice.

Must be an Arizona thing.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10239026
So what is it that people expect to be able to photograph that they somehow feel they're unable to for some mysterious reason?

I must live somewhere where every other American doesn't 'cause I simply haven't run into these quasi police-state issues that many seem to feel is the norm.

Maybe I don't "push the envelope" as hard as some folks. Or maybe they push it too hard. Either way, I simply don't run into the kind of "photographic pushback" that is being reported.

Must be an 'eastern' thing Jay.

There is a distinct attitudinal difference between big-state police and small-state police. Being crowded tends to make everyone more protective of turf.

Ever hear the joke by the NYC comedian who was driving through Texas? Somewhere around Amarillo, he was stopped by a Texas high patrolman. The patrolman walked up to his window and said, "Son, are you carrying a firearm in that vehicle?"

The New Yorker exclaimed, "Oh, no, officer!"

The Texas highway patrolman drew out a pistol and said, "Well, here, take this one."

hairy_moth wrote in post #10238344
Even though the site is "public", I would consider an area blocked off by police "restricted," not public -- at least not for the purposes of this conversation.

Either way (semantics aside) a roped off area is not what this conversation was about.

When I was an LEO, any area we "roped" or "taped" off was considered government property.

Mark