Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/08

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: OT ! a naked exposure
From: jbcollier at shaw.ca (John Collier)
Date: Sat Jan 8 11:11:38 2005
References: <41DE7309.9000102@cox.net> <5o80u0dur6ijgpod9hol6nuub0tkm1p220@4ax.com>

All he would have to do is show one of Walmart's ads inviting people to 
come on down for cheap tube socks. He would then be there on Walmart's 
invitation. He still could be prohibited from photographing but he 
couldn't be charged with trespassing.

Mind you I don't actually look at Walmart ads. Perhaps they list all 
the people they don't want to come on down; or, maybe a general clause 
on restraining orders.

:-)

John Collier

On Jan 8, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Eric wrote:

> Why?  I don't see how Wal-mart is in the wrong.
>
> A guy takes a photograph on somebody else's property.  The owners of 
> the
> property says they don't like photographs being taken without prior
> permission, and that if the photographer doesn't want to hand over the
> photo, he isn't welcome back.  If he comes back, he would be legally
> trespassing.


Replies: Reply from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] Re: OT ! a naked exposure)
In reply to: Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] OT ! a naked exposure)
Message from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] Re: OT ! a naked exposure)