What and where and whom can you legally photograph?

[Steve Smith]

An accredited photo journalist can pretty much use for publication whatever they shoot

Any accreditation a journalist might have does not alter the law at all. An accredited journalist has to live and work by the same laws as anyone else.


Steve.

[benjiboy]

In general even if you know your legal rights it's difficult to insist on them when two 225 lb cops have your arms twisted up your back, in these cases " might is right", you may be able to get legal redress later if the police have broken the law, but that is after the event.

[hpulley]

Any accreditation a journalist might have does not alter the law at all. An accredited journalist has to live and work by the same laws as anyone else.


Steve.

Sure about that? I thought that news photos of public interest could be used without permission by accredited journalists, unlike the rest of us. You don't need the president/prime minister's permission to photograph him making a speech for example. Of course tabloids will claim that celebrities are in the public interest and thus they can make money off of pictures of them with sweatpants and dishevelled hair.

[David Lyga]

Albeit British, benjiboy seems to be 'amongst the few' who know the REAL laws in the 'great' USA.

What a time to celebrate this 'might is right' on the 4th of July! - David Lyga

[Steve Smith]

Sure about that? I thought that news photos of public interest could be used without permission by accredited journalists, unlike the rest of us. You don't need the president/prime minister's permission to photograph him making a speech for example.

It's the newspaper which uses the picture. It doesn't matter who takes it.

No title, accreditation or alleged celebrity status changes the law for anyone.


Steve.

[benjiboy]

Albeit British, benjiboy seems to be 'amongst the few' who know the REAL laws in the 'great' USA.

What a time to celebrate this 'might is right' on the 4th of July! - David Lyga

I admit I know very little about the law, but I do have had a lot of experience of life.

[Diapositivo]

It's the newspaper which uses the picture. It doesn't matter who takes it.

No title, accreditation or alleged celebrity status changes the law for anyone.


Steve.

That's of course quite right.

"Accreditation" is something that gives access to some photographers to a place where they would otherwise legitimately not be admitted (imagine a private sport pitch, or a tribunal hall).

But the admissible use of an image is dictated by the law regardless of accreditation, the law is the same for everybody. If you take pictures of riots in the road, you sell them and they are used with the same set of rules exactly as if you were an accredited or licensed photojournalist.

[Early Riser]

Any accreditation a journalist might have does not alter the law at all. An accredited journalist has to live and work by the same laws as anyone else.


Steve.

Steve, you seemed to miss out on the rest of what I wrote;

"An accredited photo journalist can pretty much use for publication whatever they shoot, unless of course it's the long lens into someone's bedroom thing, however if they are shooting a covert drug deal or some other law breaking act, they probably would be exempt as long as the imagery was in the interest of the public. But even if you photograph someone on the street, photo journalist or not, you can not use that image for commercial purposes without the written consent of the subject."

I didn't give PJ's a free pass, they have restrictions. Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the "covert drug deal", it being on private property with the participants having an expectation of privacy. Photographing of which is something that a non photojournalist could face a law suit over. As is the case with James O'Keefe, the guy that does the video stings. He is currently being sued by one of the Acorn employees for $75,000 for violating the invasion of privacy act. An accredited journalist would most likely not face such a situation because that information is a "legitimate concern for the public". Also courts have been siding with the Press for the last 15 years on these issues.

[Diapositivo]

Steve, you seemed to miss out on the rest of what I wrote;

"An accredited photo journalist can pretty much use for publication whatever they shoot, unless of course it's the long lens into someone's bedroom thing, however if they are shooting a covert drug deal or some other law breaking act, they probably would be exempt as long as the imagery was in the interest of the public. But even if you photograph someone on the street, photo journalist or not, you can not use that image for commercial purposes without the written consent of the subject."
[...]
As is the case with James O'Keefe, the guy that does the video stings. He is currently being sued by one of the Acorn employees for $75,000 for violating the invasion of privacy act. An accredited journalist would most likely not face such a situation because that information is a "legitimate concern for the public". Also courts have been siding with the Press for the last 15 years on these issues.

Early Riser, if I can interpret Steve thinking, and mine, in those case where a "legitimate concern for the public" prevails in respect to the legitimate expectation of privacy by one person, it makes no difference whether the picture was taken by an accredited photo journalist or by uncle George. Either the person has a legitimate right to privacy - regardless of the status of the photographer taking the picture - or there is some legitimate interest of the public for the story to be known, again regardless of the status of the photographer.

The judge will weight the two rights, in the light of existing laws, regardless of the photographer's professional status.

[Steve Smith]

Early Riser, if I can interpret Steve...........................

Interpreted correctly!


Steve.