• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI releases photos of Boston blast suspects

clownboy said:
Only one part, how is "public figure" defined by law? AND I will point to these being legislative restrictions not constitutional restrictions (in case Ikari wishes to ressurrect the busted identity argument).
Click to expand...
There is no hard and fast guidelines, it's handled on a case-by-case basis.

But basically, if you're in the news or noteworthy, you're likely to be classified as a public figure.
 
the left picture seems too blurry,the right picture the man definately looks middle eastern or from the mediterranian.
 
Visbek said:
Sheryl Crow is a public figure. A photo of Ms Crow in a public place can be purchased and published by a media outlet.

However, you cannot take a photograph of Ms Crow drinking a soda, and using that photo in an advertisement.

You may not like the paparazzi, but they have the legal right to take photos of public figures when they are in public.
Click to expand...

I don't, but that wasn't my argument. So, you're saying the act of selling the photos wasn't a commercial act, it wasn't commerce? Of course it is. The reason you couldn't legally use the picture in an ad for soda is that it implies endorsement, a separate issue.

Further, no matter how non-public a figure you are, if I take a photo of you in public I can freely SELL (commerce) that photo to any magazine or newspaper without your permission. They are also free to publish that photo (and SELL newspapers, again commerce) without your permission.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
There is no hard and fast guidelines, it's handled on a case-by-case basis.

But basically, if you're in the news or noteworthy, you're likely to be classified as a public figure.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that would be a clear case of unequal application of the law - especially if the law were protecting constitutional principle. I'll know it when I see it is hardly a good standard, nor do I think it is the standard to begin with.
 
clownboy said:
So, you're saying the act of selling the photos wasn't a commercial act...
Click to expand...
Yep. The image is not being used for advertising purposes. It doesn't matter if the photographer is on a salary or is a freelancer, they obviously have the legal right to do what they do -- as long as they are not trespassing.


The reason you couldn't legally use the picture in an ad for soda is that it implies endorsement, a separate issue.
Click to expand...
No, it's because using the image is a commercial act. I seriously doubt the statutes mention anything about "endorsements," which are contracts between private parties.
 
apdst said:
There are definitely more than a couple posters that re relieved as hell, excited even, that the suspects appear to be white boys.
Click to expand...

As opposed to what? Middle Eastern? Black? Hispanic?

No one is "relieved" that the suspects appear white.
 
Jack Hays said:
Indian fighters.:cowboy:
Click to expand...

I see. Why's a dude from The Valley such a Texas Ranger Fan? I figured you would be hanging out in Lexington, paying homage to TJ Jackson. ;)
 
apdst said:
Yeah, whatever!
Click to expand...

How about this: No matter what race or ethnicity the suspects are, they deserve the full weight of the law, and there should be justice.
 
zstep18 said:
How about this: No matter what race or ethnicity the suspects are, they deserve the full weight of the law, and there should be justice.
Click to expand...

Well, you know and I know that their are folks out there that aren't thinking like that.
 
apdst said:
I see. Why's a dude from The Valley such a Texas Ranger Fan? I figured you would be hanging out in Lexington, paying homage to TJ Jackson. ;)
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Sorry, but not from the The Valley. And a photo of W.T. Sherman has graced my office wall since 1989.:cool:
 
Visbek said:
Yep. The image is not being used for advertising purposes. It doesn't matter if the photographer is on a salary or is a freelancer, they obviously have the legal right to do what they do -- as long as they are not trespassing.
Click to expand...

I agree they have a legal right to do what they do, as detestable as it is. But the public photo is not the issue where it comes to the advertising question (see below). Being in business to sell photos is indeed a commercial enterprise. Selling photos of people taken in public is indeed commercial.

Visbek said:
No, it's because using the image is a commercial act. I seriously doubt the statutes mention anything about "endorsements," which are contracts between private parties.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with it being "a commercial act", again, selling the photo in the first place was a commercial act. Can't use someone's photo in a non-commercial advo either. That's because it's implied endorsement without permission.

And yet I can plaster any photo I took of you in public, public figure or not, on the front page of the PennySaver (if I were editor), without your permission, and SELL as many papers as I wish (commercial activity).
 
Ikari said:
That he is, but given the limitations of humanity; he cannot be everywhere for all hours.

If that FBI van wants to sit on my street for all hours, it may. It cannot use any tech to see or hear inside my home without warrant, anything they see through open window is inadmissible less they have warrant, it should be extremely restricted from recording everything without warrant either. But if they just want to sit in that van and do nothing, then more power to them.
Click to expand...

this right here is exactly why libertarianism stays irrelevant. people will argue to the point of lunacy

what next. no flashlights. People can't see for all hours.

go away
 
clownboy said:
Has nothing to do with it being "a commercial act", again, selling the photo in the first place was a commercial act. Can't use someone's photo in a non-commercial advo either. That's because it's implied endorsement without permission.
Click to expand...
OK, again, "endorsement" is not relevant. As far as I know, the term does not appear in any statutes, and that's not the limit.

The question is how the image will be used, either for "journalistic" or "commercial" purposes. It doesn't matter if the paparazzo is paid for his work, because it is being published as a type of news.

However, it doesn't matter if you are a public or private figure, in public or in private. If someone uses the image for a commercial purpose -- e.g. put in an ad, put on a t-shirt, put on a book cover -- without permission, that's illegal, and they can get sued for it.

If I'm walking down the street and I take a photo of a random person, and put that on the cover of my book, and I did not get their permission -- or I lost the release -- and I get sued, I'm almost certainly going to lose the case. There is no expectation that an unknown person is "endorsing" my book. The problem is that I am using an image of that person for a commercial purpose without their permission.


And yet I can plaster any photo I took of you in public, public figure or not, on the front page of the PennySaver (if I were editor), without your permission, and SELL as many papers as I wish (commercial activity).
Click to expand...
No, you can't.

The PennySaver is not a media outlet, and I'm not doing anything newsworthy. That's using the image for a "commercial purpose," and you can't do that without my permission.
 
ARealConservative said:
this right here is exactly why libertarianism stays irrelevant. people will argue to the point of lunacy

what next. no flashlights. People can't see for all hours.

go away
Click to expand...

Did I say no flashlights? Or are you just trying to be absurd to push a point you have no rational defense of?

Go away.
 
Visbek said:
The PennySaver is not a media outlet, and I'm not doing anything newsworthy. That's using the image for a "commercial purpose," and you can't do that without my permission.
Click to expand...

And yet all over America it's done on a daily basis. Photographs of shoppers, people walking, talking, doing whatever. Names not noted, no release necessary. Heck, my photo was shown in the local Penny Saver (that's why I chose that publication to mention) several times, not once did I sign a release. One time I was signing with a local choir at a public park, another I was playing guitar, again at a public park and another where I was just standing there on the street.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Yes please do. I'd rather discuss the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the thread topic "FBI releases photos of Boston blast suspects" and someone suggested CCVs on every corner. That's how we got to this ON-TOPIC discussion. I agree, that part of the discussion has played out. What do you want to move on to?
 
clownboy said:
Wasn't the thread topic "FBI releases photos of Boston blast suspects" and someone suggested CCVs on every corner. That's how we got to this ON-TOPIC discussion. I agree, that part of the discussion has played out. What do you want to move on to?
Click to expand...

No moving on. Just staying on subject. The last law class I had was in 1982. Please let's keep it that way. I could give a **** less about the legalities of taking pictures in public.
 
From the pictures I would almost guess Middle Easteners.

But in our society where everybody has a camera on them it is without doubt that they are in someone's pictures from that day. Perhaps even a better close up shot. Maybe this is what the FBI is hoping for.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
No moving on. Just staying on subject. The last law class I had was in 1982. Please let's keep it that way. I could give a **** less about the legalities of taking pictures in public.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Proceed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom