May 22, 2006
Photo of the Day: May 22, 2006
It was quite the weekend for the greater D.C. metro area.There was the first ever O's & Nats series, graduation at George Washington and Georgetown, the Dragon Boat Races on the Potomac and everything else in between. The biggest news of the weekend, however, happened up in Baltimore at the Preakness, where this photo by Flickr user themarkpike was taken. There is no EXIF data for the shot.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
As an FYI, it was graduation at George Mason, too.
And AU Law's graduation.
Thanks for picking me, DCist. A lifelong (okay, however many weeks you've been doin' this ish) dream accomplished. I am honored!
Apologies to the fotophiliacs who drool over EXIF data. I clicked "Save for Web" and lost all the precious data. The photo was taken with an SD300, and the flash accidentally went off. I fixed the levels a little bit to make it less harsh.
I don't know anybody in the photo, but I hope they're flattered.
those women are scary.
Mark,
I hope they sue you.
Explain to me how you have the right to post pictures of people you don't know on the internet?
Thanks
nanana,
Get a clue.
Please explain to me why you think anyone DOESN'T have the right to post the pictures they take of people in public places.
Thanks.
Individuals do not waive their rights to privacy or the right to determine what happens with their image just by walking out the door. Next time you attend a sporting event read the back of the ticket, it includes (or should include) language that releases the venue from liability in the event that you get hit by an errant ball and language granting them the right to use your image.
I have a clue. And if I knew the girls in the picture, I would have clients.
I suggest you buy a better one, if you really think that there's a cause of action here. The clue comes pretty cheap - pick up any hornbook that outlines the right to privacy, and circumstances that lead to a reasonable expectation thereof. Or bore your classmates and ask about this during your next torts class.
In public spaces, people can photograph whatever, whomever they want. You ought just get used to it.
Actually you both are wrong. Without a release from an individual, unless the photograph is newsworthy or "art", there are limits to what you and I can do with an image.
And no, in public spaces you do not have the right to photograph "whatever, whomever" you want. You may be able to photography "whatever, whomever" you want but that does not mean that you have the right to do it. And even if you take a photograph there may be limits on what you can do with it.
Since you obviously know so much about this topic, nanana, please educate the rest of us. To start with a specific example near and dear to DCist readers, tell us exactly what cause of action the girls in the photo might have, and give us examples of similiarly situated successful plaintiffs.
I know i'm late to this, sorry.
nanana, MB put forth a pretty straight forward challenge, and you seem to have become very quiet. What gives? Maybe you just went to bed.
Furthermore, it may (and, i admit i don't know) be reasonably assumed that based on the language on the back of a sporting event ticket, that any attendee gives up basic rights to privacy regarding being photographed. Again, I don't know this to be true. You are welcome to correct me.
nanana, by your very own admission, this photo is kosher.
it's both newsworthy (covering a current event) and art.
WHen I saw the picture, I thought, "I. Hate. Them. More. Than. Anything." Then nanana started posting.
nanana, we're all so impressed you're a lawyer. It's so hard to do. and we're all afraid of you and your powerful legal analysis. now go chase an ambulance.
WHen I saw the picture, I thought, "I. Hate. Them. More. Than. Anything." Then nanana started posting.
nanana, we're all so impressed you're a lawyer. (Though I suspect you're a law student. Only a law student would post something so stupid). It's so hard to do. and we're all afraid of you and your powerful legal analysis. now go chase an ambulance.
nanana, who cares if someone's picture is posted here. BFD... how does this exactly hurt the individuals pictured where they would want/need to sue. At any given moment walking around the streets of DC, how many pictures are being taken of us. There are homeland security cameras, traffic cameras, helicopters with cameras overhead, tourists taking thousands of photos of anything that moves - so, who cares.
I guess that with the large number of lawyers in this town, there's bound to be quite a few really crappy ones in the bunch.
Here's a good article on the topic at hand:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/start.html?pg=10
The women in this photo make me want to hire nanana to draft up an air tight prenup. They look like a bunch of sorority gold diggers.
I admit I don't know the relevant laws, but I would think it's ok to take pictures like this, but illegal to profit off of them without consent from the subjects. I'm curious to hear the actual answer if anyone truly knows.
Sorry for the delay in the response... I have been otherwise occupied. However, the responses that have been posted actually are understandable as the right of privacy and the right of publicity are complicated. But we do not waive our rights to privacy when we go out in public, nor does the availability of the Internet disrupte the underlying right to privacy.
For now, here is a good resource that addresses this issue:
http://www.publaw.com/photo.html
nanana - that link does not "address" the issue. It says "it's complicated, so get a waiver no matter what to be safe." Typical law website advice.
As a lawyer (15 years) & a photographer (6 years), I have to agree w/MB, greeps, et al. that he/she is being overly "conservative" (to be charitable). Such conservatism is often a good trait in an attorney, but here it's just overkill. Of course, the women in the picture could always sue themarkpike for invasion of privacy (very few activities in our society are free from litigation risk), but that lawsuit would likely fail. So while nanana may have some new clients, they're not going to be happy ones.
The laws of privacy & publicity actually aren't that complicated. It's the balancing of private & public interests that *can* be complicated, though the typical "snapshot" or amateur Cartier-Bresson/Winogrand situation isn't. For those kinds of pix, the Bert Krages material (referenced in the Wired article) is much more useful advice than the stuff on the Lloyd Rich (www.publaw.com) site, which appears to be more oriented towards pro & aspiring pro photographers who want to sell images to publications, stock agencies, etc. (who need absolutely risk-free material & often demand model releases, anyway).