John, Thanks for posting NY 14 order. Has anyone seen similar "orders" or documents from other jurisdictions? It would be a service to collect them here on PF. Regarding privacy and photography, I think individual photographers should have a personal code of ethics firm in their mind. For example, ask themselves if they'd like themselves or someone in their family depicted in a particular way. Also there are images that could be misused and present an unintended hurtful or contrary message. Not much can be done about that, I agree. When in doubt, play it safe. Rambling on in the popular cynical paranoid mode: Privacy is a very fuzzy subject for the courts today. It seems that anything about you, every key stroke, including your image is not private. People believe the unwanted gaze is only an aggravation. They don't recall recent history (J. Edgar Hover, Nixon, warrent-less wire taps,etc.) or look ahead to possible secret tyrants. On the bright side, living in a glass box is also harder for tyrants. AZ LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround E-Book FREE COPY http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: Legality of Street Photography > From: John Palcewski <palcewski@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, August 29, 2010 10:23 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > I always keep a copy of NYPD Operations Order 14 in my camera bag, just in > case: > > http://bit.ly/B0dtf > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Kim Mosley <mrkimmosley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The court of appeals ruled on the statute of limitations issue, not on > > the free speech issue. Also, this is a decision for NY, not for the USA. And > > a book cover is different than a photograph in a gallery. > > > > In November 2007, the New York Court of Appeals<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Court_of_Appeals>- > > the state's highest court - affirmed the victory for diCorcia. The Court of > > Appeals limited its opinion to the timeliness issue, holding for the first > > time that claims under New York privacy law must be brought within one year > > after first publication, whether or not the plaintiff learns of the > > publication during that period. The Court of Appeals did not reach the core > > dispute between privacy rights and photographers' rights of free expression. > > > > Kim Mosley > > http://kimmosley.com/blog > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2010, at 7:29 AM, John Palcewski <palcewski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Chris says: > > > > Look out for the lawyers that what I would say to John in Italy. I > > think that type of image over here may be illegal as the two are being used > > as models and could sue. I have had loads of problems with street > > photography. > > > > * * * > > > > > > The New York Supreme Court decision in Nussenzweig vs DiCorcia affirmed > > the right of a photograper to display, publish, and sell (at least in > > limited editions) street photography without the consent of the subjects of > > those photographs. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia > > > > > > > > > > > >
