Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Clive Moss wrote: >> >> http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > > > OK -- so it is a very delayed response. > Great site. I have been wondering about how to do street photography > without embarrassment. Your advice has motivated me to try again. If I > do not post again, it is because I have

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

At 05:34 AM 5/19/01, Arthur Entlich wrote: >... >My secrets for street photography without getting killed ... Thanks for the encouragement. >- Clive Moss http://clive.moss.net To fight Cancer go to http://www.ud.com download the software, and join my team by clicking on http://members.ud.com/s

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

on 5/19/01 6:58 PM, Dave Buyens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> My secrets for street photography without getting killed include some >> fast slight of hand on occasion (looking like you are photographing >> somewhere or something else). But more often its just a really big smile >> that disarms p

RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Art, I am a part time photojournalist. I hope my comments below encourages others to follow your lead. Arthur Entlich wrote: > My secrets for street photography without getting killed include some > fast slight of hand on occasion (looking like you are photographing > somewhere or something el

RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 6:09 PM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/19/01 6:58 PM, Dave Buyens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> My

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

on 5/19/01 10:57 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [re needing or not needing releases for 'art'] > You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get > sued for invasion of privacy. There is no right to privacy in a public place by definition. We are talki

RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

ons. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:30 PM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/19/01 10:57 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [re n

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

w reliable your assertions are? Maris - Original Message - From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 1:11 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street | >There is no right to privacy in a public

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Dave Buyens wrote: > Art, > I am a part time photojournalist. I hope my comments below encourages > others to follow your lead. > > Further, I don't need a model release for such publication. Now, if it were > for art's sake or for profit--that'd be a different story. Then, go ahead > an

RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

. Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street Laurie, Now you're (properly IMHO) backing off from your initial statement: "You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get sued for invasion o

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

John wrote: > Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is t

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? > I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. > > OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus > tour (50's vers

RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Art, You certainly do have a point. For me, though, it's certainly not as much profit as I'd like! Dave Arthur Entlich wrote: > I've never quite understood why publishing an image in a newspaper is > considered "not for profit"... does the name Randolph Hearst (and > granddaughter Patti) and C

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

From: "Johnny Deadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street > on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Doe

RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

0, 2001 5:38 PM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? > I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Douglas Landrum wrote: > > Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If > so, what so they say? Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a result of your assumed

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

>My street releases are two paragraphs. A friend has a model release printed on the back of his business card ... obviously, it's not very long but he feels it's better than nothing and they're much more convenient to carry around than a sheaf of papers. He also prefers a cash payment on the spo

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

they say? - Original Message - From: "Johnny Deadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street > on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

cked the laws and cases of the State where you engage in your profession. Maris Lidaka - Original Message ----- From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:23 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the str

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

on 5/21/01 1:23 AM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm > http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/library/weekly/aa032601a.htm > http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:// > www.rcfp.org/photoguide/index.html > http://law

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

canners: OT: photographing on the street Douglas Landrum wrote: > > Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If > so, what so they say? Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give up all rights and privileges granted you under al

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. In any event, unless someone does relatively sta

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

21, 2001 9:09 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street | Beautiful, Art. A simple statement that says it all. You're gonna get | crucified for this, I hope you know. :-) | | Best regards--Lynn | | --Original Message-- | From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To:

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

> Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a > published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? There was a mention of a Cartier-Bresson case before. But on reading the Stirling article in turns out that it wasn't the photograph that was at issue but its

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea. Of course, Street People, if they know the guy is giving out $1 bills, might hog the camera! Kinda restricts your subject matter a little! :-) --LRA >My street releases are two paragraphs. A friend has a model release

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

on 5/21/01 10:06 AM, John Matturri at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once > someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the > photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to > ceding to

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

on 5/21/01 11:07 AM, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There are various Releases at > /www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/> nice one! this is great http://www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/pocket_release.

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

on 5/21/01 11:29 AM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea. > > Of course, Street People, if they know the guy is giving out $1 bills, might > hog the camera! Kinda restricts your subject matter a little! :-) I have a

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

>Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea. It's a pretty simple release and I'm sure it's far from bulletproof, legally speaking. The funny thing is this guy has no intention of ever selling his photographs -- he's retired and living off a seven-figure pile of m

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Such arrangements can be essential but also delicate.Years ago I photographed a housing project in Newark for a local newspaper. At the time racial/social tensions in the city were high, to say the least, and I wouldn't have gotten access to people and their apartments without such help, which cam

RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once someone has refused to sign you h

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Quebec is special in this regard. Maris - Original Message - From: "Johnny Deadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:34 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street [snipped[ | >

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

I have a problem with giving out money for photographing people on the streets. (a) your relationship is contractual rather than a voluntary arrangement but much more importantly (b) I'd rather people wanted to be photographed without payment entering into it. I a

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

In a message dated 21/5/01 3:56:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? For what it's worth even Rudolph Giuliani of NY, nor famous for his love of free expressions b

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

John wrote: >There is a larger issue that I hope the courts would take into consideration: that documentation of social life is a public good that outweighs the discomfort that might be felt by some subjects (and by many photographers for that matter). >The issue especially comes to a head with p

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

t; Sent: May 21, 2001 3:34:45 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/21/01 10:06 AM, John Matturri at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once > someone has refused to sign you have an explicit la

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

Lynn wrote: > Good points, John. One also has to ask what the point > of photography is if you can't show it to people, > i.e. publish it. One of my worst experiences with photography started out as a favour to a friend. Friends were involved in a Native American dance group, and asked if I coul

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

On Sat, 19 May 2001, Johnny Deadman wrote: > Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? Yes, but I don't think a snap in a public area would implicate it in most if not all states. It's a matter of state law, not federal law, so it's impossible to draw a general rul

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

On Mon, 21 May 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: > With the "3 Stooges" decision, one can see that the law seems to favor > whomever wants to be vindictive enough to pursue it. The Stooges' rights are owned by Comedy III Productions, and they're very protective of their property. In another recent case,

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

A nice general overview of many of the issues that have come up here re model/properly releases and invasion of privacy in the United States can be found on the Photo District News website . . . . http://www.pdn-pix.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html Perhaps some of you will fi

Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street

In a message dated 21/5/01 5:05:05 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer. I know enough to be wary. I do some street photography and do not get model releases. I have always wondered what a model release is anyway. If I were