Slashdot Mirror

Whilst there are probably a dozen practical and legal reasons why this probably isn't enforceable, the one that immediately springs to my mind is that Burning Man is taking place in a Black Rock Desert, which is government-owned and criss-crossed with historic trails open to the public. There are likely to be large areas of Burning Man which are visible from these public areas, and thus, according to Kantor's Legal Rights of Photographers (PDF), open to photographer to take photographs from as they see fit, without restrictions.

Nowhere in his original account (http://www.duanek.name/Amtrak/index.htm) does he state that he was taking the pictures for the contest. It seems to be that the journalist chose to heavily emphasize the contest angle, perhaps to go for a more compelling story. Unfortunately, the journalist's choice to spin it as a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, he missed the bigger picture. Photographers are increasingly faced with arbitrary restrictions and demands that are not based upon the law, but based on fear. Forums at places like dpreview.com and flickr are often abuzz with stories of cops making unreasonable demands.

The only way to counteract this is with knowledge. If you happen to like taking pictures of subjects in public spaces, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm is an enlightening read. This link (http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf) says essentially the same thing, but lays it out with a real-world example.

Also, to the editors, perhaps having a link to the current version of the contest (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Hot_Deals_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1093554057903&ssid=224) would be good. I was skeptical that they actually had continued running the contest until I found that.

"I joked that the camera had no film (get it, digital, ha-ha), but the security officer was not amused and said he would have to take my camera and arrest me if I took any more pictures. WTH?"

Not to mention that them taking your camera is called "theft", and it can be prosecuted. If they damage your equipment, that is "destruction of private property", if they delete your images from your card, that is also "destruction of private property".

Check out the Legal Rights of Photographers document for this EXACT example (page 4 of the pdf).

From another site on the matter: "...Taking your film film, asking the following questions directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion."

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/
http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

These links have probably been posted elsewhere in this thread, but just in case...

Schneier did a piece on this not too long ago. He included this handy link to a PDF with a good rundown of your legal rights when it comes to taking photographs (hint: you have more than you might think).

Review this summary of photographer's rights

Hey call your shots before linking to a damn PDF.

Shopping malls aren't public places. They can absolutely kick you out for any reason they feel necessary. They can't demand that you hand over your film or prevent you from publishing the pictures that you've taken, but they can demand that you not take pictures or kick you out.

Sorry, you are dead wrong here. Review this summary of photographer's rights.

Did you read the statement I made at the end of my comment? Read it again. But when it comes down to it, I bet if you did a survey, the majority of people would say that they think that a shopping mall is public property because it gives that impression. From what I read in the photographer's rights document that I read, it came down to being able to get into the facility without a key, special permission or some credential.

Shopping malls aren't public places. They can absolutely kick you out for any reason they feel necessary. They can't demand that you hand over your film or prevent you from publishing the pictures that you've taken, but they can demand that you not take pictures or kick you out.

Sorry, you are dead wrong here. Review this summary of photographer's rights.

I have a friend who is the president of a photography club in CT. He's been arrested twice for refusing to turn over his rolls of film - with pictures of local WPA bridges & Buildings.

Unfortunately stuff like this is getting to be more and more common in the new police state of the USA. People can and do fight it but most don't want the inconvenience of being arrested so they'll just hand over their film docilely. For those who want to fight this there's a pdf handbook that can be downloaded, Legal Rights of Photographers. It goes into detail explaining what a photographer should do if approached by law enforcement. Actually I think, I don't recall for sure, I may of first heard of it here when someone else posted a link to it a few years back in another thread. It was either here or Photo.net.

The attention paid to anyone on the street with a camera has gone up since 9/11. If you spend much time taking pictures of a federal building you'll probably get to talk with the security guards. If you are actually standing on their grounds when you take the shots they'll confiscate your gear and at the very least give it a thorough going through before giving it back.

You also have some people who just don't want their stuff photographed. If you look too professional while shooting the Flat Iron building in New York their guys will come tell you that the building's likeness is protected and you can't shoot it, which is wrong but they'll give it a go anyway. I've kept my camera in the face of doped up militia troops in the Congo though, so I'm a harder target for them than most.

I much prefer the one located over here, because it actually has quoted legal precendent, case law, writs and other legal materials to refer the officers and courts to, should you end up taking it that far.

The other one is written by a lawyer, but does not cite any actual case law or legal documents at all. That would be laughed at when used in a court to defend yourself against a case involving photography.

You don't necessarily have to get oil from dead dinosaurs.

There are efforts going on to advance the technology of Thermal Depolymerization.

That's a ten dollar word for "oil from pretty much any biological waste" including turkey offal and medical waste (what they're using now.)

Doesn't do anything for greenhouse gasses or global warming, mind you, but as a solution to Foreign Oil Dependency, it sounds like an interesting concept.

And you can make the case that perhaps the car companies need to be getting behind this technology in order to make sure that there's a device that will consume all this lovely thermally depolymerized chicken crap. :)

But what do I know?

There's not a way to make plastics without oil, but there's a way to make oil out of organic wastes which can, of course, be used to make more plastics.

This was some pretty cool stuff.