Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On May 26, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > 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. I started Mark, by wondering if you have a vendetta against LUG slackers, lingerers, and non professionals like me, who "have a vendetta" against the "real pros like you"..... I finished, to my surprise, agreeing with you sir. I have seen enough "by accident" in Manhattan and Paris apartments to understand what casual exhibitionism means. None of that is in the exhibit in question, further the people are not even identifiable. People know that they can be seen, they want to be seen, or they don't care...they in this case appear to resent someone "taking advantage of them by showing them as they are, and making money on it, to boot. That said the photographer crossed the line here and should/will be punished, but the point has been made. The next time they want to play with their significant other, naked, on the living room rug, they may think twice...or they may wish to perform as if on stage... they are. Steve > > > > > 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/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information