Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/04

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] feb shutterbug
From: S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 08:37:40 -0800
References: <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJGEGBNNAA.darkroom@ix.netcom.com>

I had a similar problem, not too long ago, when I was working on a story
on cock fighting. I asked the Sheriff's Dept. about the legality of my
being at a fight undercover. Since I was with a known media outlet,
accredited by the Sheriff's Dept., it wasn't seen as a problem. But they
would of like to know before hand where we were, so they could do their
job. At that time Arizona was a haven for cock breeders, whereas it was
completely illegal in California. So we weighted the possibility of a
road trip to get out of state to do the portion that would of been a
problem here in California. Needless to say, the story wasn't budgeted
for the extra expense, and that's where it ended.
  Slobodan Dimitrov

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> > The question is whether, when hired by an organization
> 
> I don't believe who hired him is of any consequence to his legal
> responsibility...
> 
> > to shoot their apparently illegal action, the PHOTOGRAPHER is a
> > part of the
> > illegal action, or can in some convoluted way claim the
> > protection of being
> > a JOURNALIST.
> 
> It depends on what the "illegal action" is.  If he was trespassing, then he
> was trespassing.  If he was shooting pictures of, say, a bank robbery...then
> he'd hardly be considered party to the illegal action(s)...unless he knew
> about the proposed activity beforehand, and that it was illegal, I guess he
> could be considered an accomplice.
> 
> I don't believe there is any protection for a photojournalist if s/he is
> actually DOING something illegal, they should be subject to the same laws as
> everyone else is...but just taking pictures of an illegal activity doesn't
> make you party to the activity in and of it self I don't believe.
> 
> What about newspaper reporters who have information (like specifics about a
> hit or a robbery), aren't they protected from revealing their sources, and
> the details of the information, per se?  I guess one could make a convoluted
> argument for protection?
> 
> Austin
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> (RE: [Leica] feb shutterbug)