Page 33 of 36 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 360

Thread: Law on photography update

  1. #321

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    106

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus View Post

    There are several other cases that have applied the same conclusions as Porat that non-communicative public photography is not free speech. So it isn't obscure.
    Give us a name and date of just one...

  2. #322

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
    Posts
    5,808

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by r.e. View Post
    Traffic court is a whole other matter
    Yup... we are about $1000 less wealthy even though the judge said thought the law was stupid and the cop was being a dick because there didn't appear to be any imminent danger resulting from the "illegal lane change". The judge also said that he was hearing his last cases prior to retirement and was "in a good mood". Oh... and in addition to fine and court fees... there was the mandatory traffic school to keep the points associated with the violation off of the record. Traffic court certaily does seem like a whole other matter!

  3. #323

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by r.e. View Post
    I think that it is highly unlikely that he does trial/appellate work.
    If I was a lawyer arguing a case I would be charging you - or someone - a lot of bucks!

  4. #324

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    106

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus View Post
    If I was a lawyer arguing a case I would be charging you - or someone - a lot of bucks!
    And we would indeed NOT be getting anything worth our money.

  5. #325

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by OldCrow View Post
    Give us a name and date of just one...
    Larsen v Ft Wayne PD...in which the plaintiff's claim to First Amendment right to take photos of a high school event was rejected because of Porat - the court actually referrd to and had cited Porat directly:

    "It is well established that in order to be protected under the First Amendment, images must communicate some idea." Porat v. Lincoln Towers Cmty. Ass'n, No. 04 Civ. 3199(LAP), 2005 WL 646093, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2005). More specifically, to achieve protection under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must show that he possessed (1) a message to be communicated, and (2) an audience to receive this message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed. Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 568 (1995); Porat, 2005 WL 646093, at *4. Therefore, the taking of photographs or videography, without more, is not protected by the First Amendment.

  6. #326

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    I asked (politely even) but there was no response.
    I don't want to make this about me personally. I want to keep it about the issue.

  7. #327

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
    Posts
    5,808

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus View Post
    I don't want to make this about me personally. I want to keep it about the issue.
    OK, no problem with that... it's just odd to me that in several photo forums there are people asserting legal opinions stating that they are lawyers and do so expecting complete trust. I was more curious than questioning your credentials.

  8. #328

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,673

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus View Post
    Ok, see let me explain it some more. The question is what "standard of review" the courts should apply when judging the legality of police conduct. In some cases, especially when constitutional freedoms are at stake, the standards of review are very strict - the police have to meet a specific burden of proof in order to justify their conduct. In some other cases the standard is very low or nonexistent, and the judges DEFER (not "automatically believe") to the cops. In deciding that for example a particular course of conduct was creating a public danger, the judges will tend to apply a standard that defers to the police's views on the matter.

    No, don't explain some more. It isn't helping.

    When the charge is causing a disturbance, the question is whether the accused did so. At the trial, the witnesses, including any police officers, are expected to testify about the facts, and the judge decides whether those facts prove the offense. Unless there is something like the legality of a police search in issue, none of this has anything to do with reviewing police conduct.

    I am not an American lawyer, but it is complete news to me that on a charge of causing a disturbance, a U.S. judge is under a legal requirement to put the evidence of a police officer on a plane higher than that of other witnesses. That is certainly not how it works in Canada, the U.K. or any other part of the Commonwealth.

    If it is how things work in the U.S., it strikes me as a really odd to jump to the conclusion that it should be "fixed" by making something a constitutionally entrenched right.

    Cyrus, you started by presenting an interesting issue that should have been discussed on its merits, i.e. whether there should be a distinction, for first amendment purposes, between photographers who are making work for an audience, and those who are interested only in personal enjoyment. But in defending your view on this question, you have largely through your own posts taken this discussion way off track and made overstatement after overstatement, which doesn't help your argument.
    Arca-Swiss 8x10/4x5 | Mamiya 6x7 | Leica 35mm | Blackmagic Ultra HD Video
    Sound Devices audio recorder, Schoeps & DPA mikes
    Mac Studio/Eizo with Capture One, Final Cut, DaVinci Resolve, Logic

  9. #329

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    OK, no problem with that... it's just odd to me that in several photo forums there are people asserting legal opinions stating that they are lawyers and do so expecting complete trust. I was more curious than questioning your credentials.
    Well there are lawyers with credentials who are morons, and there are people without credentials who are brilliant so its not really about credentials. In any case I've done my best to provide links and citations for others to verify anything I'm saying independently. They don't have to believe me and I don't particulary care if they do or not -- I'm not selling anything.

  10. #330

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,074

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    OK, no problem with that... it's just odd to me that in several photo forums there are people asserting legal opinions stating that they are lawyers and do so expecting complete trust. I was more curious than questioning your credentials.
    Brian and Cyrus,

    I know that walking up the steps of a court of justice is a 50-50 gamble. The initial judgement can be quote and used until it's overturned. The scales of justice are often only tested fully after strenuously argued appeals.

    If someone with balls and money appealed up to higher courts, they'd get new judgement. The Porat decision, while quoted, is hardly the last word. Essentially, without collecting information that might lead to formation of speech, there can be no free speech! Today, photography is universally recognized as part of repeatedly sampling one's surrounding for remembering, entertainment and communicating what was seen to others. There is, today no longer a clear absolute separation between recreation and news coverage. What is taken for "fun" can end up on You-Tube as a viral piece of communicated speech. Essentially, the Porat decision if upheld by the Supreme Court ,would make judges free to decide what of such speech is protected. The whole idea of "Free Speech, is that it includes freedom to observe and record, think, reflect perhaps and then impulsively or thoughtfully express some though, idea, concept or image. It could be as simple as "The Are Flowers in San Francisco". That a judge feels that is not some idea of value is hardly relevant.

    Without a highly skilled law firm with the full resources to take this case all the way to the Supreme court, the Porat case should be considered a mistake that can be corrected if we are determined.

    Asher

Similar Threads

  1. report from Chicago
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2011, 21:07
  2. "movement" Now Official
    By Keith Fleming in forum On Photography
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 26-Dec-2010, 22:53
  3. Ending Film camera sales + print fading challenge
    By John Flavell in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 28-Aug-2005, 21:19
  4. digital vs traditional photography
    By Ellis Vener in forum On Photography
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 18-Jul-2005, 05:33
  5. observations on hand held large format photography
    By Mark Nowaczynski in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20-Dec-2000, 11:16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •