Taking Pictures in Public

Found this article from 4/17/08 edition of USA Today on considerations needed before taking pictures in public.

Think twice before taking pictures in public

 

Thanks to digital cameras and camera phones, photography is experiencing a renaissance. Many people carry a camera everywhere they go.

 

But before you start snapping, ask yourself a question: Is it legal to take a photograph in this situation? Test your knowledge with this quick quiz.

(Local laws regarding photography may differ. I'll tell you what is generally permitted. It should not be construed as legal advice.)

You're photographing the exquisite steps of a public library from a nearby sidewalk.

This one is easy. It is legal to take photographs in public places. This includes streets, sidewalks and public parks. However, you cannot obstruct other passersby.

You want to photograph an older couple holding hands in a public park.

You can photograph people in public places without consent. There are exceptions, though. If subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy, don't photograph them. For example, don't photograph someone in a restroom or locker room.

You plan to photograph your neighbor's house from the sidewalk.

Your neighbor's house is private property. However, it is visible from a public place. So photographs are legal. Get permission if you plan to stand in the driveway or yard, though.

You're photographing your neighbor's house from the street. Your neighbor is visible through the bathroom window.

Your neighbor has a reasonable expectation of privacy, even though the window is open. So don't photograph your neighbor in the bathroom. The bedroom is also off-limits.

You're on the street photographing a military base.

The military can prohibit photographs it deems detrimental to national security. Likewise, you may be banned from taking photos of nuclear power plants. And don't expect to take photos in government buildings like courthouses.

You witness an accident scene from public property. You want to sell a photo of it to a newspaper.

You can take such pictures from public property. However, don't hinder police or emergency workers. If asked to move, do so. You may take photos from another location.

The newspaper will use the photograph for editorial purposes; no consent is needed.

You're photographing children in public. You will sell copies at an art gallery.

You do not need permission to photograph children in public. Art falls under editorial usage; consent is not required.

You take pictures of people in public. You want to sell the photos via a stock photography site.

Get a model release from anyone uniquely identifiable before trying to sell the photos.

Companies purchasing your photos will use them for commercial purposes. They need a release to limit their liability. Otherwise, they could be sued. Stock sites have their own rules governing model releases. They won't accept photos that don't meet these requirements.

You're photographing products at the supermarket.

You need permission to take photos on private property. But stores are private spaces open to the public. Owners can limit photography with clearly posted restrictions.

You want to photograph your son's soccer game at a public park.

Amateur leagues often rent public parks for events. Some jurisdictions consider the property private for the event's duration. The league can ban photography.

You're photographing an NFL game.

Many professional leagues ban photography. Restrictions should be posted. Some venues only ban professional cameras, like SLRs.

Finally, you may encounter problems taking photographs in legally permissible situations. The best solution is to avoid conflict. If in doubt, identify yourself and ask permission before taking photographs.

Kim Komando hosts the nation's largest talk radio show about consumer electronics, computers and the Internet. To get the podcast or find the station nearest you, visit: http://www.komando.com/listen. To subscribe to Kim's free e-mail newsletters, sign-up at: www.komando.com/newsletters. Contact her at gnstech@gns.gannett.com.

Save our Post Office Service

In the Saturday, February 9, 2013 edition of The Brattleboro Reformer, the following editorial appeared:

Our opinion: Bleeding the USPS

Our opinion: Bleeding the USPS

Do you think the U.S. Postal Service is deeply in the red because of mismanagement? Because of competition from private carriers? Because of a bloated work force?

If you think any of those, you are wrong.

The reason the USPS is considering cutting Satur­day delivery is something called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which requires the Postal Service to pre­fund the next 75 years of retiree health benefits by 2016.

As Ralph Nader said, that congressional mandate forces the USPS to cover employees who haven’t even been born yet.

This mandate was only inflicted upon the USPS, no other governmental agency, and some have ven­tured to say it’s an attempt by Congress to disman­tle the National Association of Letter Carriers, which represents about 200,000 city delivery letter carriers.

Others say it’s just another example of Grover Norquist’s philosophy of shrinking government to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub.

Let us not forget that the USPS does not receive tax dollars or subsidies from the federal govern­ment; it is intended to be self-funding.

Under PAEA, the Postal Service is required to make $103.7 billion in benefits between 2007 and 2016, or on average a little more than $10 billion a year.

Since the enactment of PAEA, the Postal Service has lost $41 billion, nearly 80 percent of which can be attributed to having to prefund the retiree bene­fits plan.

Astoundingly, according to the Inspector General, the annual payments could be eliminated because the USPS’ retirement fund is at more than 100 percent.

In addition, the Postal Service has overpaid $80 billion to the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System, according to the USPS’ Inspector General.

And to no one’s surprise, the federal government has made no effort to repay the USPS for the over­payment.

Nader maintains if Congress were to reverse PAEA and reimburse the overpayment, the Postal Service wouldn’t be in the predicament it is today.

Instead, the Postmaster General is making small cuts here and there to try to stem the hem­orrhaging; either way, the post office is bleeding to death.

The most recent pronouncement to come from the Postmaster General is his intention to cut Sat­urday services.

“Ending Saturday delivery not only threatens the future of the U.S. Postal Service in the long term, but in the short term it harms small businesses’ ability to carry out their operations in a timely manner, may inhibit the elderly’s ability to receive important medication by the mail, and will drive even more customers away from the USPS and toward private mail carriers like UPS and FedEx,” wrote Nader.

Nader admits that declining mail volume has con­tributed to the USPS’ woes, as has the financial cri­sis, but it’s not the chief problem affecting the post office’s bottom line.

“The Postal Service’s ‘financial crisis’ is in fact an entirely manufactured ‘crisis’ precipitated by the ill-advised schedule of prepayments ... mandated by the 2006 PAEA ...” wrote Nader.

The Reformer urges our readers to contact their senators and representatives in Washington, D.C., and ask them to rescind the PAEA and reimburse the Postal Service the money it has overpaid into the federal retiree system.

Rather than hacking the USPS to pieces, perhaps we should call upon Congress not to surreptitiously bleed the system until it falters and collapses, leav­ing for-profit industries to scoop up the pieces.  

We don’t believe that would be of benefit to any­one.

I really like the USPS.  I enjoy sending out mail and look forward to receiving some each day. I interact daily with postal workers.  And, I genuinely appreciate that I can put a stamp on an envelope for less than 50¢ and have it arrive anywhere in the United States within a few days.

So, I sat down and wrote the following letter-to-the-editor:

Thanks for pointing out that the real reason for the “Postal Service Fiscal Cliff Crisis” is The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) which forced the Post Office to pay ahead 75 years of expected pensions. In other words, pay ahead for pensions for people not even hired yet. No other corporation or government agency has to work under such an unfair burden. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader noted, if PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today:

The solution to this strictly political, manmade “crisis”?

Undo the 75 years’ advance payment requirement and relax the numerous constraints on the type of products and services USPS can provide - such as notarizing papers, having coin machines available for making copies, or selling maps.

Also, as more and more Americans order products online, there is tremendous potential for boosting USPS revenues from parcel deliveries. Give the Postal Service more flexibility in pricing its products. Such pricing would more accurately reflect the actual cost of providing a service and would allow it to better compete with private carriers.

The Postal Service helps the elderly get their medicines, helps small businesses send products and payments inexpensively, helps retirees cash their Social Security checks, and lets us cast absentee ballots so that we can participate in our democracy.

No company can grow or maintain its business by weakening service to customers. It is clear that USPS must adapt to our nation’s changing needs and that adaptation might mean shared pain for all stakeholders involved. Instead of adapting, too many in Congress, and in Postal Service management, see cuts in service as the only solution. But making the Postal Service less valuable will drive customers away, leaving it to face a new financial crisis in just a few short years.

Our postal service and its workers have been a national necessity and treasure since Colonial days, especially in rural areas. Hang them out to dry for political points, and we all lose. It’s up to Congress to act to allow the Post Office to save itself, lest it become a victim of a crisis that Congress itself manufactured.

The letter was published on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 in the Brattleboro Reformer. 

Sunday (London) Times responds to Global Criticism of one of its cartoons

On January 27, 2013, the Sunday (London) Times published a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe in which the image depicts a hunchbacked Benjamin Netanyahu building a cement wall dripping with the blood of Palestinians and various Palestinians’ heads cemented into the wall while they writhe in agony. The caption below reads “Will cementing peace continue?”

Reaction was swift in condemning the publication of the cartoon; especially on Holocaust Memorial Day.  Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Sunday Times, issued an apology.  Martin Ivens, Acting Editor, also issued a statement apologizing for its publication.

A meeting was conducted with Jewish leaders in London and it appears that the apology was sincere and accepted.

This is a good example of a company taking responsibility for its mistakes quickly and effectively.

The offensive cartoon was brought to my attention by HonestReporting.com. It's call to action prodded me to write the following letter: 

To the Editor,

On Holocaust Memorial Day, a day  to remember the most appalling atrocities carried out in modern history, you chose to publish a cartoon (“Israeli Elections… Will Cementing Peace Continue?”)  that is not only offensive to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust but is also a blood libel.

The fact is Israel’s security barrier (of which the vast majority is a fence and not a wall) is meant to protect Israeli civilians against Palestinian terrorism. 

Your publication of a misleading blood libel shows a total disregard of history in that what started as cartoons in the 1930′s ultimately led to violence and unspeakable tragedy. 

You owe your readers and the world an apology.

Six days later, I received the following response.

Dear Mr Cohn

I am grateful to you for writing to The Sunday Times and expressing your views so clearly. I’d like to apologise at the outset for the offence caused by Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon published last Sunday.

Its publication was a terrible mistake. The timing – on Holocaust Memorial Day - was inexcusable. The associations on this occasion were grotesque. As someone who understands the history and iconography in this context, I appreciate fully why publication has caused such offence and I apologise unreservedly for my part in that.

I sought an urgent meeting with leading members of the Jewish community, and am pleased to say that we got together on Tuesday evening. It was a frank but constructive meeting. Mick Davis, Chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, accepted my apology on behalf of the group and told the press afterwards that the community “now looks forward to constructively moving on from this affair”.

I hope you will find this reply reassuring, I thank you again for your correspondence.

Yours sincerely
Martin Ivens, Acting Editor

Lessons learned
1. There is power in writing letters-to-the editor
2. Good will can be repaired by responding to letters-to-the-editor

On 27 January 2013 21:19, martin cohn <cohnpr802@gmail.com> wrote: