Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/05/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] a photographer sued
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:14:55 -0400

Yea shooting with a telephoto lens is certainly legal and what has defined
"reasonable expectation of privacy" in this country is far from " public
street shooting what is in plain sight." as defined in this post. Or
certainly how long our lens is.

People on the LUG over the years have been lighting quick to limit the
doings of professional and or serious photographers as a knee jerk reaction.
Oh is somebody shooting a photo somebody doesn't like?
Squelch it!
 The doing of photography here is about never given the benefit of the
doubt. I wonder why?
If one does not choose to pursue photography on a very serious or pro level
then why feel like squandering the activities of those who do?
I wonder if stamp collectors or glass unicorn collectors go to limit the
doings of the people who make those stamps and unicorns for a living? They
should use only the ink and glue and glass you find wonderful and non
threatening.

If your pants are around your legs sitting on the can with your blinds drawn
and the door closed and you appear on the cover of the Village Voice next
day its my understanding you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to
see yourself there. You can be a bit surprised about that and the call to
your lawyer would probably be worth the time and money.
Having ones windows wide open in a large building in Manhattan with no
curtains means you are philosophical about the hundreds of people who are
privy to your comings and goings and doings every minute in every evening of
your life; as if they're not going to look.
If one does not want others to know what's on your TV or to even watch your
TV and know which fork you eat your TV dinners with one closes ones blinds
... Leave those blinds or curtains open and you are "ON THE AIR" putting on
a show for whoever want to look over at the glowing 3d screen which is your
window and your life.
This is no doubt what the point of the show in the art gallery is all about.

In Manhattan as in I'm sure most cities most close their blinds as its
common sense. Avarice is the #1 cause for crime. If they see it they want
it. If the don't see it they have much less reason to want it from you at
least and go after it. It occurs to them much less so to break into your
house and go after your TV, wife and kids maybe not in that order if they
don't know what's behind our door/window/wall.
An amazing amount of people seem to have no care for their home security. Or
privacy. 
But a photographer for sure is always the bad guy. A photographer has only
the small set of rights you deem proper that day depending on what mood your
in.
Turns out the law really doesn't think so. And in an encouraging amount of
cases the freedom of the press and freedom of expression wins out.  That
good old first amenedent has amazing tenacity here. It tends to win out
against all attacks... . Even privacy laws which don't exist  And stuff make
up off the tops of their heads because it seems "fair" to them that day.




On 5/26/13 10:38 AM, "Bharani Padmanabhan" <scleroplex at gmail.com> wrote:

> even i have to agree they have a case here.
> he was not on a c
> http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm
> 
> bharani
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information




-- 
Mark William Rabiner
Photography
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/




Replies: Reply from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] a photographer sued)
Reply from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] a photographer sued)
In reply to: Message from scleroplex at gmail.com (scleroplex) ([Leica] a photographer sued)