RE: Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography?
But is this the same or similar law that HCB himself sited in order to keep the recent photos of himself in Faceless by David Douglas Duncan? He was successful in keeping that from being available in France, right? Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob Walkden Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:50 PM To: frank theriault Subject: Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography? Hi, I go to talks by big name photographers quite frequently, and have been to several by Magnum photographers and they all moan like hell about it. As the article says, it makes HCB a criminal. snip - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography?
In a message dated 12/1/01 2:06:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The seatbelt would have not made any difference, IMHO. Of course it mattered. The bodyguard sitting in front of her was wearing a seat-belt. Though he suffered grievous injuries about the head, chest and face, he is alive and working at his craft. Wearing a seat belt, Di might have only suffered bruising and to a lesser degree than the bodyguard. Without a seat belt, her 110 pound body became an 85mph missile slamming into an immovable object. Someone more brilliant that me should do the math but that much soft tissue hitting a stationary object at 85mph had to be generating tons of force on impact. Death was instantaneous and guaranteed. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography?
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Cotty wrote: The lack of a seat belt killed Lady Di, not the driver or the Paparazzi. The seatbelt would have not made any difference, IMHO. Well, her bodyguard survived and he was wearing a seatbelt... he was the only one who survived and the only one wearing a seatbelt. dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography?
Hi, things are pretty bad in France at the moment:- http://www.vjgroup.org/apfrench.htm --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, November 30, 2001, 11:13:43 PM, you wrote: Well, I don't know too much about the law, and how it pertains specifically to photographing crime scenes, but I do know a little bit about criminal law. I don't know how photographing police officers at their work impedes anything. It may piss them off, but it doesn't impede them from carrying out thier duties - assuming that you're far enough away from the action that you're not physically impeding them from moving about. If an officer thinks that you've photographed relevent evidence, he or she may ask you for the film, but as far as I know, one has no obligation to hand it over. If you refuse to hand it over, they can subpoena the film, or subpoena both you and the film, for any future court case. But if one refuses to hand it over, I believe that an arrest would be an intolerable abuse of power, and an illegal arrest and imprisonment to boot. To illegally arrest a photograper in order to seize film would probably taint that evidence to the extent that it couldn't be used in court. That's not to say that nasty officers wouldn't threaten arrest. That's not to say that they wouldn't actually arrest someone in order to get their film. But such an arrest would, imho, be highly illegal, and leave the arresting officer potentially liable in a fairly large civil suit. And, if they did subpoena the film as evidence, it would have to be returned to the rightful owner after the court proceedings, just as any other evidence has to be. Of course, what the law is, and how police officers act are sometimes two different things... regards, frank - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography?
- Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 5:52 PM Subject: Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography? Hi, things are pretty bad in France at the moment:- http://www.vjgroup.org/apfrench.htm I suppose it depends on the POV. Had these laws been in place 5 years ago, Princess Diana might well still be alive (for better or worse). It does look like a typical case of political over reaction to an out of control situation however. It does show what happens when a particular group (in this case paparrazzi photographers) get so far out of control that their actions start chains of events where people get hurt. If people won't police themselves, the government will be more than happy to do it for you, but you won't like the results. I know, Diana and Co. were killed by a drunk driveryadda yadda On another level, would she have been in that car if whe hadn't been attempting to hide from the photographers? Overall, it was an unfortunate situation that went terribly wrong, but it wasn't just a drunk driver. If this set of laws is the result, perhaps in future the (I hesitate to call them this) photojournalists will think twice before inflicting themselves on people. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Illegal Street Photography?
Hi, I go to talks by big name photographers quite frequently, and have been to several by Magnum photographers and they all moan like hell about it. As the article says, it makes HCB a criminal. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Saturday, December 01, 2001, 1:21:34 AM, you wrote: Hi, Bob, That does pretty much suck. But as I said in a subsequent post, my thoughts only pertained to Common Law jurisdictions. France is a Civil Law jurisdiction. In addition, as I read the article, the taking of the pictures is not illegal, only the publication of them is. But, it still sucks. regards, frank Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, things are pretty bad in France at the moment:- http://www.vjgroup.org/apfrench.htm --- Bob -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
