Ethics of shooting a "diver"

[Charlie99]

I might post his picture randomly in another thread, just for fun..he is underwater getting ready to tackle me...very amusing.

Preferably, the one you took last January:

I accidentally got his picture, and he looked funny--all crazed like his eyeballs were gonna pop out.

 

[Cacia]

yes...look forward to that later today Charlie.

How 'bout "Wanted ..Crying or Begging"

 

[pterantula]

What you described is assault, under legal and dictionary terms.

Actually, it's battery - but he's also liable for assault here as well.

Swinging a weightbelt at someone? Aside from it being assault with a deadly weapon, it also means it's ON. (Swing a weightbelt at me, you'll be crapping lead for a month....)

 

[Cacia]

well, I was on the boat for free and he is one of the boat's biggest clients. So...I did not want to shoot myself in the foot there.

 

[Peter Guy]

Disclaimer -- I am NOT an Intellectual Property or Privacy Rights attorney (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) -- but I have studied this issue for my company and for my own personal interest.

Some general comments -- Each jurisidiction has its own rules -- so just because something is permitted in California does not necessarily mean it is permitted in Oregon.

While people talk about how using a photograph of someone is OK for news editorial purposes but not for commercial purposes, the line is not that clear.

Last, the legality of the useage can depend in large part on the purpose of the image. For example, did you put Tiger Woods in your poster so that people would buy it because it was a picture of Tiger Woods or was TW in the poster because he was a Masters Winner and it was a poster of Masters' Winners? (That is from a real case and TW lost.)

Privacy rights, copyrights, etc. are fraught with legal issues -- photographer beware!

 

[jon m]

under water contact/pushing? (i haven't read all replies) i would press charges in a heartbeat! someone could die, i don't care if it's 15' of 50'!
above water contact- it's on!
-me

 

[DaytonaDave]

Some general comments -- Each jurisidiction has its own rules -- so just because something is permitted in California does not necessarily mean it is permitted in Oregon.

While people talk about how using a photograph of someone is OK for news editorial purposes but not for commercial purposes, the line is not that clear.

Peter, I was speaking of your constitutional rights... As in the First Amendment. The only places that you can be asked to waive these rights (you don't have to be there) are on private property. You can also be restrained from taking photos where it affects national security... Other than that, it's all fair game, really. Now it gets hairy when the police officers are threatening to take your camera and arrest you... but they really don't have the right to do that unless you are unlawful.... harassment, breaching the crime scene, etc....

In the private sector, you have the 'right' to take any photo you want from public property. Now, as you said, anyone else has the 'right' to sue you.

I was only touching on the law, not the semantics of the flaws of our legal system

For the most part, editorial content is pretty cut and dry... there is a new classification now which we nicknamed "advertorials". These are sponsored articles... as in; "Joe" from "Joe's Coffee House" is called by the magazine to buy an ad... they may ask him to buy a section of a page for a designed ad. To sweeten the deal, they may also offer to include a story about coffee in the magazine and feature his business.... no longer editorial... to the layman, it appears to be.