 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006Photographer's Rights - written by an attorney
I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and want to share this with fellow photographers. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf This was written by an attorney in the USA, and might not apply in other countries. The gist of the article is that people have the right to take photographs while standing on public property, unless there are signs prohibiting such activity. Further, private security guards at industrial facilities or shopping malls cannot detain you or force you to surrender your film or confiscate your equipment. If such personnel try to take any of these actions, they are breaking the law and can also be subject to civil suits. Father Kodak. > I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and > want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Father Kodak. Not trying to dampen the spirit of your post but have you ever tried to get a civil court case going against anyone? It is no trivial matter and certainly quite likely to cost the price of an average new automobile. The fact it's written by an Attorney speaks volumes in itself. Just because laws exist, does not in itself mean justice under those laws is available to everyone, even anyone. >> I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and >> want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Just because laws exist, does not in itself mean justice under those laws > is available to everyone, even anyone. That's for sure....Every day in this country thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of people have their civil rights taken away from them by municipal court judges all across the nation. They know full well that it is not worth the time and trouble for the victims to carry their case to an appeals court, so they will just pay whatever the fine is, and go away. And even if they do protest, and eventually win their case, the very next day the same judges in the same courts will take the same rights away from their brothers, so nothing is gained by their trouble. No precedent is set by them winning their case, so what's the point? In local government's zeal to make money, any pretense of following constitutional law is thrown out the window. The higher up the court, the closer to constitutional law are the decisions, but the lower court judges could care less. Many of them aren't even trained in the law. They are just there to make money for local government, and it sure does show in the decisions they make.... > That's for sure....Every day in this country thousands (perhaps hundreds of > thousands) of people have their civil rights taken away from them by > municipal court judges all across the nation. What country is that? (Please don't assume everyone here is in the same place). Peter, It doesn't matter which country. The Justice system is heavy and costly. The only difference with certain countries is simply the fact it's even worse. Marcel > Peter, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Marcel And in many countries things are much better. >>Peter, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And in many countries things are much better. Things may be better in some countries. > >>Peter, > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Things may be better in some countries. Depends on your outlook. For me many a few countries work better than others. It all comes down to a number of issues and laws. Since freedom can be seen as just a set of laws I prefer some sets of laws over others. I have been very fortunate in that I have had the chance to experience life in a few countries. People really should do this if they get the chance and do it with an open mind. >>>>Peter, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > life in a few countries. People really should do this if they get the > chance and do it with an open mind. But some people can't or won't afford an open mind. They'd prefer their perspective of their world to stay cluttered with preconceived notions, implausible prejudices, and bastardized ideals. I think most of them work for the Homeland Security Agency.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>>Peter, > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > implausible prejudices, and bastardized ideals. I think most of them > work for the Homeland Security Agency. LOL! Thanks I needed that laugh although it is truly sad in a way. >> Depends on your outlook. For me many a few countries work better than >> others. It all comes down to a number of issues and laws. Since freedom [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >implausible prejudices, and bastardized ideals. I think most of them >work for the Homeland Security Agency. And some of them "work" for Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar groups. Father Kodak >>>Depends on your outlook. For me many a few countries work better than >>>others. It all comes down to a number of issues and laws. Since freedom [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Father Kodak Or for the 700 Club, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly & Tim LaHaye ... the list goes on and on and ... >> And some of them "work" for Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar >> groups. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Research Council, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Phyllis >Schlafly, Beverly & Tim LaHaye ... the list goes on and on and ... Agree 100%. The name on the door is different, but inside, it's the same (lack of real) thinking. Look at the recent brouhaha over "Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays." What a phonus-balonus issue. Unless you're trying to divert public attention to more important issues which put you in a very bad light. Vater Kodak >>>And some of them "work" for Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar >>>groups. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Vater Kodak Well, there are certainly important issues they'd like to divert attention from right now, but it's really a power thing; an ego trip of expecting to shout "FROG!" and expecting half the world to start hopping ... and they expect to get rich from it. Look at 'em, "jet setters" all, living in obscene luxury on the contributions of the "faithful." That's the only difference between Al Qaeda and the 700 club. Al Qaeda's leaders are in it for the power to tell others how to live, while Pat Robertson's in it for the power to tell others how to live AND for GREED. >>>Depends on your outlook. For me many a few countries work better than >>>others. It all comes down to a number of issues and laws. Since freedom [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Father Kodak Not that much of a difference from where I sit. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Peter, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Marcel In England we have a Small Claims Court, where cases can be brought for a fixed cost, so as not to deprive people of modest means of the right to obtain justice. "Mike O'Sullivan" <mike@nowhere.com> wrote in message > In England we have a Small Claims Court, where cases can be brought for > a fixed cost, so as not to deprive people of modest means of the right to > obtain justice. We have the same thing here in the US.....Lawyers are not allowed. (at least, acting as lawyers....they may use it as ordinary citizens) Same in Canada, Mike. However, on the subject that's being discussed here, I'm not quite sure that Small Claims is the way to go... Marcel >> Peter, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a fixed cost, so as not to deprive people of modest means of the right > to obtain justice. Got 'em in the US as well. Usually limited to around $3,000 actual damages, i.e. someone doesn't pay you money they owe you (for a used car you sold them fer instance ...). Suing a security guard who forcibly confiscated your camera/film wouldn't be a small claim. And if you were in a "public" area, you should also press criminal charges against the individual. > Suing a security guard who forcibly confiscated your camera/film wouldn't > be a small claim. Of course it is. You can sue for any damages done to the camera, film, memory cards, etc., as well as any medical expenses and pain and suffering. >> Suing a security guard who forcibly confiscated your camera/film wouldn't >> be a small claim. > > Of course it is. You can sue for any damages done to the camera, film, > memory cards, etc., as well as any medical expenses and pain and > suffering. Maybe he's talking about the amount of money involved....A small claims action is limited in amount.....$1500 or some such thing. (I don't remember exactly) If you had a modern professional camera and some long fast pro lenses, $1500 wouldn't come close to covering it. >>Suing a security guard who forcibly confiscated your camera/film wouldn't >>be a small claim. > > Of course it is. You can sue for any damages done to the camera, film, > memory cards, etc., as well as any medical expenses and pain and suffering. I think you miss the point. There are indeed small expenses involved. The issue itself OTOH ... The right to pursue a lawful occupation in a public place without interference from officious a.sholes is not by any definition "small". The amount of "damage" someone accosting me and attempting to deprive me of my livlihood creates would rapidly exceed $3000. >> That's for sure....Every day in this country thousands (perhaps hundreds >> of thousands) of people have their civil rights taken away from them by >> municipal court judges all across the nation. > > What country is that? (Please don't assume everyone here is in the same > place). I was speaking of the United States. >>> That's for sure....Every day in this country thousands (perhaps hundreds >>> of thousands) of people have their civil rights taken away from them by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I was speaking of the United States. And of course all of that *has* been taken to the US Supreme Court, and it was decided that you are not correct, and in fact they are not having their civil rights taken away from them. Now, you and I may not agree with that, but the US Supreme Court isn't going to hear it again. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>> That's for sure....Every day in this country thousands (perhaps >>>> hundreds [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Court, and it was decided that you are not correct, and in fact > they are not having their civil rights taken away from them. All of what has been taken to the supreme court? I'm afraid that statement is too general to have much meaning. I know of a guy (with more money than he should really have) who takes minor stuff like traffic violations to higher courts all the time, and always wins. He wins because he has and prepares a case, and the city or county does not. It's this guys hobby. (or was, about 30 years ago) I should send you my DMV brief......It might open your eyes a bit. >"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message >I'm afraid that statement is too general to have much meaning. I know of a >guy (with more money than he should really have) who takes minor stuff like >traffic violations to higher courts all the time, and always wins. He wins >because he has and prepares a case, and the city or county does not. It's >this guys hobby. (or was, about 30 years ago) I should send you my DMV >brief......It might open your eyes a bit. Since all of us in the US have to deal with a DMV at some (unfortunate) point in our lives, would you consider posting a URL, or even the text of the brief itself (if not too long.) Father Kodak >>"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Father Kodak I don't know how to post a url.....I don't have a personal web page. I would be glad to send you a copy. Is your email address a good one? - If not, then send me a private email from a good return address, and I will send you a reply with the document attached. My address, weg9@comcast.net is a good one. If anyone else wants the document, just do the same thing.... >>"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message Nothing you quoted is text that I wrote... >>I'm afraid that statement is too general to have much meaning. I know of a >>guy (with more money than he should really have) who takes minor stuff like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >(unfortunate) point in our lives, would you consider posting a URL, or >even the text of the brief itself (if not too long.) If it is what he sent me, don't bother. Same sort of thing as people "proving" that income tax is not constitutional. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If it is what he sent me, don't bother. Same sort of thing as > people "proving" that income tax is not constitutional. My advice? - Don't let Floyd Davidson do your thinking for you. The document is only a couple of pages long......You can read it in a few minutes, and all the cases listed there are documented, and can be verified in any law library. - Of course, the cases for the, "other side" aren't listed.....This, of course, is the responsibility of the opposition, which, like FD, are those who love to give up their rights and will opt for the, "no freedom of choice" position every time in their desperate attempt to socialize the whole world. But, I tried sending it to you, and the email bounced, so you are going to have to give me a viable address in order to get it. >>"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Father Kodak I doubt you'll ever get any specifics. Always turns out to be somebody a friend of a friend knows, but you could try looking it up on snopes if you're at all interested in some of the other stupid stuff people believe. "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message news:Juvxf.125> I doubt you'll ever get any specifics. But you'll never know without reading it, will you? >>> I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and >>> want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> >>> Father Kodak. As it is against the law to force me to hand over film or equipment. Any action to do so will be considered an act of violence against myself and property. Taking it away is illegal therefore an act of theft. I shall therefore defend myself using reasonable force. Having beaten the officer or security guard within an inch of his life i will be appointed an attourney if i can't afford one. Where i will then sue for assault, theft, wrongful arrest, kidnapping and anything else i can think of. >>>> I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and >>>> want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > attourney if i can't afford one. Where i will then sue for assault, > theft, wrongful arrest, kidnapping and anything else i can think of. And, odds on chance, you'll lose. And no attorney is appointed to serve in civil suits. You'd get a criminal trial for assault and battery, resisting a police officer (unless it's a rent-a-cop, in which case you might well win a suit). >>>>> I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and >>>>> want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > a police officer (unless it's a rent-a-cop, in which case you might well > win a suit). Wrong side of the pond. Throwing a drink over someone here is considered assault. If a copper tries to do something that is illegal resisting him is not a crime. My next door neighbour was asked if he wanted to go the easy or the hard way. He selected the hardway. Case against him thrown out due to lack of evidence. Insufficient grounds for arresting him in the first place therefore resisting said arrest was not quite legal but would leave them open to counter sue so they didn't persue it. >>>>>>I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and >>>>>>want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > place therefore resisting said arrest was not quite legal but would leave > them open to counter sue so they didn't persue it. East or west? In the US, you can be charged & convicted for resisting arrest even if the arrest itself is unlawful. That applies to duly constituted authority (sworn police officer). Some places private police forces are duly constituted authority & have power to arrest. You have to stand up for your rights, but be prepared for them to be violated anyway. You may or may not be vindicated in court later. >>>>>>>Father Kodak. >East or west? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You have to stand up for your rights, but be prepared for them to be >violated anyway. You may or may not be vindicated in court later. (As the OP for this thread, who imagined it would get so many followup postings?) I'm no pollyanna LIke many people, I don't expect every police officer to know the full extent of the law. And I'm not under any illusions about the training, or even the ethics and morals of private cops. Someone once told me, "If you don't ask, then the answer is NO!" Stand up for your rights until the point at which it is "cheaper/easier" to surrender them. - that is my approach to these issues. Also, I have found that being polite and courteous, and suffering fools _patiently_, goes a long way. Give a little, but keep the things that are truly important, like your camera/film and your personal freedom. Father Kodak PS: Ever deal with the police or border guards in a communist country? Whole different perspective there. >>>>>>>>Father Kodak. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > PS: Ever deal with the police or border guards in a communist > country? Whole different perspective there. I pretty much agree with all that except -- when is it ever REALLY "cheaper/easier" to surrender your rights? >> Father Kodak >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I pretty much agree with all that except -- when is it ever REALLY >"cheaper/easier" to surrender your rights? When you don't want to get the stuffing beaten out of you, or have your camera smashed to the ground by someone who just happens to have an automatic rifle slung over his shoulder. In this kind of situation, your "rights" are just an abstract notion. In situations like this, think about dealing with a mugger with a gun pointed at you, or a knife at your throat. (which actually happened to me once.) Father Kodak >>>Father Kodak >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Father Kodak Happened to me once too. His widow buried the little puke in N. Carolina. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>> I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and >>>> want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >attourney if i can't afford one. Where i will then sue for assault, theft, >wrongful arrest, kidnapping and anything else i can think of. And right or wrong, you'll get the sh.t kicked out of you to start with, and go to jail to boot. Your lawsuit will get laughed out of court, and in prison the guards may find more interesting ways to curb your attitude. Reality isn't necessarily pretty. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>> I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and >>>>> want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > laughed out of court, and in prison the guards may find more > interesting ways to curb your attitude. Wrong side of the pond. Throwing a drink over someone here is considered assault. If a copper tries to do something that is illegal resisting him is not a crime. My next door neighbour was asked if he wanted to go the easy or the hard way. He selected the hardway. Case against him thrown out due to lack of evidence. Insufficient grounds for arresting him in the first place therefore resisting said arrest was not quite legal but would leave them open to counter sue so they didn't persue it. There are many crimes that are considered too petty to follow up. Class C drug possession being one. Fox hunting another. If a rentacop tries to take your film away even if he was allowed he couldn't. To force you to hand it over even if he is entitled to ask for it means wait for a real cop to arrive. If he tries to take it by force he's in the wrong. Unless weapons are involved the police probably wouldn't even bother to turn up if he called them. Take it from someone who called them recently. Has been mugged twice in front of witnesses. > Reality isn't necessarily pretty. You watch too many movies. Anything but the utmost courtesy from prison guards and its sh.t creek without a paddle for the officer. Making a complaint against any policemen for any reason and it sticks. If he gets 3 individual complaints its over regardless of the hows and why's. I don't know why anyone bothers to be a copper in the UK. > Anything but the utmost courtesy from prison > guards and its sh.t creek without a paddle for the officer. LMAO! "Utmost courtesy from prison guards"--you're hilarious, man. >>"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message >>As it is against the law to force me to hand over film or equipment. Any OK so far. >>action to do so will be considered an act of violence against myself and >>property. Taking it away is illegal therefore an act of theft. I shall True, keep going. >>therefore defend myself using reasonable force. Having beaten the officer >>or security guard within an inch of his life i will be appointed an Uh, you lost it here. So you are either a troll or a bigger fool than most. Even if the police or guard is wrong, using violence suddenly shifts the issue from the wrong done TO you to the wrong done BY you. And guess which the authorities focus on? >>attourney if i can't afford one. Where i will then sue for assault, theft, >>wrongful arrest, kidnapping and anything else i can think of. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >laughed out of court, and in prison the guards may find more >interesting ways to curb your attitude. Right. Groups like the police "take care of their own." Best way to call a cop in a busy urban area is to call and say, "Patrolman down." That will get a fast response. >Reality isn't necessarily pretty. No it isn't. Not when you see the range of behaviour of members of the human race. Father Kodak > As it is against the law to force me to hand over film or equipment. Any > action to do so will be considered an act of violence against myself and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > attourney if i can't afford one. Where i will then sue for assault, > theft, wrongful arrest, kidnapping and anything else i can think of. It will real damn hard to sue anyone after being shot dead attempting; >Having beaten the officer > or security guard within an inch of his life i will be appointed an > attourney if i can't afford one. Lay off the sauce before you post or grow up. T.W. > >Having beaten the officer > > or security guard within an inch of his life i will be appointed an > > attourney if i can't afford one. > > Lay off the sauce before you post or grow up. There is always a reason an idiot does not appear on the outside of my kill file. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". >> As it is against the law to force me to hand over film or equipment. Any >> action to do so will be considered an act of violence against myself and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > T.W. no sensayuma some people. I assume you mean the signs are on the public land and meet the legal requirements to prohibit you from engaging in the activity of photo taking (and this would be doubtful)? Such a sign on private land would in most instances be of no effect. regards Don >I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and > want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Father Kodak. >I assume you mean the signs are on the public land and meet the legal Such a sign on public property would have no effect. How, for example, can such a sign mean anything if posted along side a roadway? By what authority would or could *anyone* prohibit photography on a public road? >requirements to prohibit you from engaging in the activity of photo taking >(and this would be doubtful)? Such a sign on private land would in most >instances be of no effect. No... on private property the sign would *absolutely* have an effect! (Essentially if you violate the rules, you become a trespasser.) Of course that effect would only extend to the edge of the private property, so in essence it would disallow photography only while on the private property. (An example would be that a museum could post such a sign. It is also very common for telephone companies, for purely technical reasons, to have such signs posted near digital switching systems!) The statement in the OP's article that taking pictures while standing on public land is always permitted is not necessarily true. For example, using a 1000mm telephoto aimed at a crack of light from a bedroom window in a private residence is *clearly* not legal... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Father Kodak skrev: > I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and > want to share this with fellow photographers. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Father Kodak. On my 1. trip across The Atlantic I would shoot (from the pavement/sidewalk?) a building on Broadway NYC. The security-guard prohibited me. A few mins later I met 2 police officers and asked them. They had the same opinion as the guard: Private property. Strange, I felt. You can (with legal rights) take a picture of my umbrella/house/nose/whatever, any time it is in public area in Denmark. And if anybody tries to stop you, you don´t have to go to trial. The police know the law. SignatureRegards, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > Father Kodak skrev: >> I recently found this one-page writeup of photographers' rights and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > And if anybody tries to stop you, you don´t have to go to trial. The > police know the law. No, the police do not know the law, particularly when it comes to intellectual property rights. I took a look at the document referenced in the subject line, and it's quite good -- and quite accurate. If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. Note, however, that in New York, a lot of what appear to be public sidewalks are actually owned by the buildling owner, with a public easement granted for access. PTRAVEL skrev: > No, the police do not know the law, particularly when it comes to > intellectual property rights. I took a look at the document referenced in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > actually owned by the buildling owner, with a public easement granted for > access. Probl. a language probl. - my fault. I was talking about police here SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > Probl. a language probl. - my fault. I was talking about >police here Your written English is excellent, and it's perfectly clear from context - at least to me - that "The police know the law" is referring to Danish law and police. >If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. Note, Can you point a telephoto lense at a narrow crack in the curtains of someone's bedroom window, while standing on a public sidewalk? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Floyd Davidson wrote: > > If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > curtains of someone's bedroom window, while standing on a public > sidewalk? No, because by closing the curtains, the person inside has expressed a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Entirely different matter. SignatureAll 'net' games are derivatives of ping-pong. Tennis is "ping-pong played while standing on the table". Even volleyball is "racket-less team ping-pong played with an inflated ball and a raised net while standing on the table". >> Floyd Davidson wrote: >> > If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >No, because by closing the curtains, the person inside has expressed a >"reasonable expectation of privacy". Entirely different matter. Not different at all. The point is that just because you are in a public place that does *not* mean that what you can photograph from there is also public. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> Floyd Davidson wrote: >>> > If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a public place that does *not* mean that what you can photograph > from there is also public. Then why not just correct him instead of playing some kind of guessing game. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>>> Floyd Davidson wrote: >>>>> If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Then why not just correct him instead of playing some kind of > guessing game. My guess is that someone failed to note the date on this month-old thread before ringing in with such a useful question. Yes, I know, but I couldn't resist (smiley face). SignatureFrank ess On which law and in what country are you basing your comment? Bob >>>>> Floyd Davidson wrote: >>>>>> If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yes, I know, but I couldn't resist (smiley face). >>If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. Note, > > Can you point a telephoto lense at a narrow crack in the > curtains of someone's bedroom window, while standing on a public > sidewalk? Certainly. While standing on public property, you can point your lens anywhere you please. It is the responsibility of those who value their privacy to keep their window shades drawn. A cop on the beat might annoy you, but that's all he could do. If the people behind the window were to telephone a complaint to the police, they would just say, "Pull down your shades, buddy!" >>>If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. Note, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >telephone a complaint to the police, they would just say, "Pull down your >shades, buddy!" I think you'll find the cop is likely to do a *lot* more than annoy you. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. >>>>Note, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I think you'll find the cop is likely to do a *lot* more than > annoy you. He might, but he would be wrong, and when push came to shove, you could prove that in court. Like the muni judges, there are a lot of "wrongs" in this world, but it is too big a pain in the *** for most people to bother with them. For one thing, without the finished photograph, no one could prove that you weren't focusing on a bird standing on the windowsill. In fact, with the photograph, you could prove that whoever was inside the room was guilty of indecent exposure, which is against the law. Standing on the sidewalk and taking the photo that proves the indecent exposure is, in fact, not. > He might, but he would be wrong, and when push came to shove, you could > prove that in court. You won't prove it in court. It is invasion of privacy to use extraordinary means to eavesdrop on someone in the privacy of their home. If the naked eye can't see it from public property, it's not fair game. >For one thing, without the finished photograph, no one could prove that you >weren't focusing on a bird standing on the windowsill. That's what subpoenas are for in civil cases and warrants are for in criminal cases. >> He might, but he would be wrong, and when push came to shove, you could >> prove that in court. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's what subpoenas are for in civil cases and warrants are for in > criminal cases. So, it comes down to the definition of, "Extraordinary means." - One might argue that a camera with a standard, "off the shelf" telephoto lens is not extraordinary. But then, a court might find otherwise....I think it's all up to how good an attorney you have. I've seen relatively new lawyers do some fairly amazing things. I saw a brand new, wet behind the ears public defender get a guy off on his 10th time for a DUI. He got all the other 9 times thrown out too. (Because they couldn't produce signed statements that he had given up his right to a fair trial on the other times) >>>If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. Note, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Certainly. While standing on public property, you can point your lens > anywhere you please. Go to DC and take shots of the Israeli embassy from across the street. See what happens. >>If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. Note, > > Can you point a telephoto lense at a narrow crack in the > curtains of someone's bedroom window, while standing on a public > sidewalk? When I was in law school, there always was one person like you who would try to twist around what the professor said so that they could make them wrong. This person usually had no friends, never went on dates and finished in the bottom of the class. Grow up. >>>If you were on a public sidewalk, you can shoot whatever you want. Note, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >This person usually had no friends, never went on dates and finished in the >bottom of the class. I have friends, produced lots of kids, and generally graduated at the top of most classes I ever took. >Grow up. I was attempting to help you achieve that status. It seems you take offense to having errors in your comments pointed out... And I was polite in doing so, though your response is infantile. I'm sorry you didn't like the question counselor, but the point was quite valid. You *cannot* take a picture of just anything solely on the basis of being on public property. There is also the question of *what* you are taking the pictures of, which happens to be just as significant as where you are standing when you take it. If you are not on public property, you *must* have permission else it is trespass. And regardless of where you are standing, if your subject is not public, then you are *also* trespassing if you do not have permission. Such pedantic attention to technicalities were precisely what they taught you in law school, so don't be claiming that you and every other attorney doesn't make a living at *exactly* that. The fact is that non-lawyers don't know what the technicalities are, which is why we hire lawyers. And I've never seen a lawyer yet who read a law without then looking for the list of exceptions. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > If you are not on public property, you *must* have permission > else it is trespass. Right. And regardless of where you are standing, > if your subject is not public, then you are *also* trespassing > if you do not have permission. Wrong. >> If you are not on public property, you *must* have permission >> else it is trespass. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Wrong. Okay, you don't understand what I'm saying. There might well be a crack in the curtain through which you can see... but that doesn't give you the right to photograph whatever you can see. The person has a right to privacy, and the fact that you own a telephoto lens doesn't change that. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com I was attempting to help you achieve that status. It seems you > take offense to having errors in your comments pointed out... You miss the point (perhaps not surprisingly). Your hypothetical was both obvious and assinine and irrelevant to the question raised, which was the legality of photographing in public. The legal test involves expectation of privacy. Obviously someone behind closed curtains has an expectation of privacy (and that is true regardless of whether the location is public or private). So . . . why did you raise your ridiculous example, if not to show that you are "better than the lawyer." > And I was polite in doing so, though your response is infantile. > > I'm sorry you didn't like the question counselor, but the point > was quite valid. You *cannot* take a picture of just anything > solely on the basis of being on public property. You can take a picture of anything in public. > There is also > the question of *what* you are taking the pictures of, which > happens to be just as significant as where you are standing when > you take it. Nope. If it's not a military installation, or some similar installation, if it's in public, you can photograph it. It doesn't matter what it is. > If you are not on public property, you *must* have permission > else it is trespass. No necessarily. It depends on the nature of the license by which you are on the private property. > And regardless of where you are standing, > if your subject is not public, then you are *also* trespassing > if you do not have permission. Also wrong. If your subject can be seen from public property (your idiotic example of telephoto lenses and cracks in curtains notwithstanding), you can photograph it. > Such pedantic attention to technicalities were precisely what > they taught you in law school, What they taught me in law school, among other things, was the law --something with which you are clearly unacquainted. As I said, your only purpose in post was, evidently, to "show up the lawyer." You've failed and, in the process, demonstrated a fair bit of ignorance in the process. > so don't be claiming that you and > every other attorney doesn't make a living at *exactly* that. You don't know the slightest thing about how lawyers make a living. > The fact is that non-lawyers don't know what the technicalities > are, which is why we hire lawyers. There you go! So why are you making statements -- erroneous statements -- about the law? > And I've never seen a lawyer > yet who read a law without then looking for the list of > exceptions. I suspect you know very few lawyers, and those few that you do practice family law, personal injury or a similar "lower rung" field of the profession. > I was attempting to help you achieve that status. It seems you >> take offense to having errors in your comments pointed out... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >private). So . . . why did you raise your ridiculous example, if not to >show that you are "better than the lawyer." So first you say it isn't pertinent, and then point out exactly how it is. The point is that whether a photographer is standing on public property or private property has *nothing* to do with whether another person has a right to privacy. Sorry to get your ire up just because someone uses an example and concise language to make the fallacy more obvious than what you had stated, but the fact is we are both arguing the same thing here, and for almost everything else your article. First you say I'm wrong, and then you use different words to say exactly the same thing (granted with insults and then attempts at twisting words on at least a couple occasions to make it appear as if there is a difference). >> And I was polite in doing so, though your response is infantile. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You can take a picture of anything in public. If the *thing* is public. That has *nothing* to do with whether the photographer is standing on public property or private property. (Don't play word games, it won't get you anywhere.) >> There is also >> the question of *what* you are taking the pictures of, which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Nope. If it's not a military installation, or some similar installation, if >it's in public, you can photograph it. It doesn't matter what it is. So you agree with me and despite starting the sentence with "Nope" you just repeated the *same thing* that I said. If the *thing* is public you can photograph it, if it is not, you may not be allowed to photograph it. And whether the photographer is standing on public property has *no* bearing on any expectation of privacy that might be violated. Stop trying to play word games, or you'll get yourself even more confused. >> If you are not on public property, you *must* have permission >> else it is trespass. > >No necessarily. It depends on the nature of the license by which you are on >the private property. Yes... if the license gives you permission, then darned if you don't have permission! Imagine that! That's what a license *does* (it gives you special permission for something otherwise *not* permitted). Why do you start these statements with a disagreement, and then use other terms to say exactly the same thing just as if you don't understand the words? Surely you don't really think you'll convince readers that "license" is not "permission"? (And anyone who thinks otherwise needs to use a dictionary.) >> And regardless of where you are standing, >> if your subject is not public, then you are *also* trespassing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >example of telephoto lenses and cracks in curtains notwithstanding), you can >photograph it. Unless of course, for any reason, the subject has some expectation of privacy. And indeed the telephoto lense is a *very* *good* example that can be commonly understood, which demonstrates exactly the point. The expectation of privacy is reasonable, and special technology does not alter that. You can claim it is "idiotic", but then again you probably can also find the court ruling on whether police have the right to use exactly that kind of equipment to look through windows, or into back yards under various circumstances such as from a car in the street or a helicopter flying overhead. I'm not familiar with the case law and do not know the specifics of what is and what is not acceptable. But I do know that what you call idiotic is exactly what it all hinges on. >> Such pedantic attention to technicalities were precisely what >> they taught you in law school, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >only purpose in post was, evidently, to "show up the lawyer." You've failed >and, in the process, demonstrated a fair bit of ignorance in the process. I have no need to show you up on this or anything else. You are the one who responded to a statement about a photographer being *on* public property by saying that it isn't true and "You can take a picture of anything in public." I assume you are well aware that your sentence was meaninglessly ambiguous. Of course even better is saying permission isn't what it takes, depending on the license! That's one of the best I've seen in a while... >> so don't be claiming that you and >> every other attorney doesn't make a living at *exactly* that. > >You don't know the slightest thing about how lawyers make a living. How would you know, counselor? >> The fact is that non-lawyers don't know what the technicalities >> are, which is why we hire lawyers. > >There you go! So why are you making statements -- erroneous statements -- >about the law? Oh, then I *do* know something about what lawyers do. Hmmm... Regardless, we are discussin *generalities*, not technicalities. We would need a specific case to discuss technicalities. You've demonstrated here very clearly that my statements were not erroneous. You've also demonstrated that you don't mind applying erroneous labels to just about anything while hoping the label has more effect than facts do... which you probably should have understood by now is exactly the habit that lawyers have which causes people to suggest they are all less than honest. >> And I've never seen a lawyer >> yet who read a law without then looking for the list of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >family law, personal injury or a similar "lower rung" field of the >profession. Giggle snort. I note that you don't want to deny they they do indeed look for the exceptions. I have no idea why you want to fly off the handle with gratuitous personal insults that have *nothing* to do with either the topic or anything I've said. I've never seen much point to doing that. I've met very few attorneys who will engage in that type of exchange; hence I am not at all impressed. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >> I was attempting to help you achieve that status. It seems you >>> take offense to having errors in your comments pointed out... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So first you say it isn't pertinent, and then point out exactly > how it is. I didn't say your hypothetical wasn't pertinent. I said it was idiotic -- along the lines of, "Suppose you're Superman and have x-ray vision . . ." As I said, there was always one in every law school class. The point is that whether a photographer is standing > on public property or private property has *nothing* to do with > whether another person has a right to privacy. And that's simply wrong. The test, as I've said before, is whether an individual has an expectation of privacy. As a general rule (and one photographers who read this newsgroup can use), if you're in public and can see it, you can photograph it. > Sorry to get your ire up just because someone uses an example > and concise language to make the fallacy more obvious than what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at twisting words on at least a couple occasions to make it > appear as if there is a difference). You were and are wrong. >>> And I was polite in doing so, though your response is infantile. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the photographer is standing on public property or private > property. And that is absolutely, totally and completely wrong. It doesn't matter whether a "thing" is "public," whatever that is supposed to mean. If it is a thing, i.e. inanimate, and you can see it in public (and you're not Superman, using your x-ray vision), you can photograph it. The test for individuals is whether they have an expectation of privacy. The rule of law is that, if they are in public, they do not. As I said, you've made it very clear that you don't understand the law. > (Don't play word games, it won't get you anywhere.) The fact that you don't understand the principles of law does not make them word games. >>> There is also >>> the question of *what* you are taking the pictures of, which [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So you agree with me and despite starting the sentence with > "Nope" you just repeated the *same thing* that I said. No, it is not repeating what you said. The general rule is that, if it's in public, you can photograph it. I was merely anticipating another one of your pointless exceptions. If the > *thing* is public you can photograph it, if it is not, you may > not be allowed to photograph it. If the thing _is visible_ in public (even if it is on private property), you can photograph it. > And whether the photographer > is standing on public property has *no* bearing on any > expectation of privacy that might be violated. And that's also wrong. If the photgrapher is standing on public property, he can photograph anything that he can see (unless he's Superman and using his x-ray vision, or has taken his high-powered telephoto lens and put it a millimeter away from a window and peered through a crack). > Stop trying to play word games, or you'll get yourself even more > confused. Yeah, right. Again, your ignorance of the law doesn't make it a word game on my part. >>> If you are not on public property, you *must* have permission >>> else it is trespass. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes... if the license gives you permission, then darned if you > don't have permission! Look up a California case called Pruneyard. Obviously, if a license expressly authorizes photography you have permission. I wasn't talking about that. > Imagine that! That's what a license > *does* (it gives you special permission for something otherwise > *not* permitted). Ah, ignorance is bliss, isn't it? > Why do you start these statements with a disagreement, and then > use other terms to say exactly the same thing just as if you > don't understand the words? Because they're not. You simply don't understand them. > Surely you don't really think > you'll convince readers that "license" is not "permission"? > (And anyone who thinks otherwise needs to use a dictionary.) No. While you're looking up things, look up the meaning of "strawman argument." >>> And regardless of where you are standing, >>> if your subject is not public, then you are *also* trespassing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Unless of course, for any reason, the subject has some > expectation of privacy. Not "some." The test is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." > And indeed the telephoto lense is a > *very* *good* example that can be commonly understood, which > demonstrates exactly the point. Your hypothetical casts photographers as peeping Toms. Hey, everybody -- how often do you put your telephoto lenses up against windows so that you can photograph private property through a crack in a curtain? Hands? Anyone? > The expectation of privacy is > reasonable, and special technology does not alter that. As a matter of fact, it does, and the case law splits hairs in determining which technology violates privacy and which does not. > You can > claim it is "idiotic", but then again you probably can also find [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > street or a helicopter flying overhead. I'm not familiar with > the case law That's obvious. So why are you arguing with someone who is? > and do not know the specifics of what is and what > is not acceptable. Again, that's obvious. > But I do know that what you call idiotic is > exactly what it all hinges on. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I have no need to show you up on this or anything else. Then why do you keep trying? > You are > the one who responded to a statement about a photographer being > *on* public property by saying that it isn't true and "You can > take a picture of anything in public." I assume you are well > aware that your sentence was meaninglessly ambiguous. Not for photographers in this newsgroup. If you're on public property and you can see it, you can photograph it. If you have an x-ray machine or thermal imaging equipment, the statement isn't true. Show of hands, again -- who here has an x-ray machine? Anyone with thermal imaging equipment in your DSLR arsenal? > Of course > even better is saying permission isn't what it takes, depending > on the license! That's one of the best I've seen in a while... Because it's accurate. You don't understand such legal terms of art as quasi-public forums, or the difference between express and implied license. I wouldn't expect you to, since you're not a lawyer. However, I would expect you to have stopped parading your ignorance, as you have with your statement above. >>> so don't be claiming that you and >>> every other attorney doesn't make a living at *exactly* that. >> >>You don't know the slightest thing about how lawyers make a living. > > How would you know, counselor? From your descriptions of what lawyers do and how they earn a living. >>> The fact is that non-lawyers don't know what the technicalities >>> are, which is why we hire lawyers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh, then I *do* know something about what lawyers do. Hmmm... Okay, I take it back -- you do know the slightest thing about what lawyers do. And only the slightest thing. > Regardless, we are discussin *generalities*, not technicalities. > We would need a specific case to discuss technicalities. Exactly, which is why your hypothetical was idiotic. > You've demonstrated here very clearly that my statements were > not erroneous. Only if you have a reading comprehension problem. > You've also demonstrated that you don't mind > applying erroneous labels to just about anything while hoping > the label has more effect than facts do... On the contrary, I've been very specific. > which you probably > should have understood by now is exactly the habit that lawyers > have which causes people to suggest they are all less than > honest. As I said, you don't know the slightest . . . ooops . . that's right, you only know the slightest thing about lawyers. >>> And I've never seen a lawyer >>> yet who read a law without then looking for the list of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Giggle snort. I note that you don't want to deny they they do > indeed look for the exceptions. No, the first thing they do is not look for exceptions. > I have no idea why you want to fly off the handle with > gratuitous personal insults that have *nothing* to do with > either the topic or anything I've said. I have yet to insult you, though I have no hesitation about characterizing your statements. However, as I said in my first post in response to you, there's always one like you who wants to play, "I know better than the [teacher/lawyer/doctor/or other professional]." > I've never seen much > point to doing that. I've met very few attorneys who will > engage in that type of exchange; hence I am not at all > impressed. "PTRAVEL"wrote: > I didn't say your hypothetical wasn't pertinent. I said it was idiotic - > along the lines of, "Suppose you're Superman and have x-ray vision . . ." Sorry, but *your* example here is the one which is idiotic. Superman is a fictional and fantastic character, as we all know. Telephoto lenses, OTOH, are quite real, and one could be used to invade someone's privacy in exactly the way described; in fact, they *have* been used in that way. > The point is that whether a photographer is standing >> on public property or private property has *nothing* to do with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > photographers who read this newsgroup can use), if you're in public and > >can see it, you can photograph it. Floyd is correct - you are actually agreeing with him, and you are contradicting yourself, particularly in the paragraph above. As I read it, his point was ABOUT expectation of privacy. Someone who has drawn the curtains has an expectation of privacy in his or her own home, and the fact that someone "in public" can see it **with the aid of a camera** - we ARE in a camera NG, discussing the legalities of taking photographs, you know - does not necessarily mean that the person with the camera has a right to take pictures (or even be looking). If you intend to be conveying"If you're in public, and can see it with the unaided human eye", I have to say that for an alleged attorney, you do a very poor job of defining your terms. Incidentally, any lawyer who claims to "know the law" on everything is one to be steered very clear of; in the law, more so than almost anywhere else, "Jack of all trades is master of none" is to be heeded. >> Sorry to get your ire up just because someone uses an example >> and concise language to make the fallacy more obvious than what [quoted text clipped - 262 lines] >> engage in that type of exchange; hence I am not at all >> impressed. >Incidentally, any lawyer who claims to "know the law" on everything is one >to be steered very clear of; in the law, more so than almost anywhere else, >"Jack of all trades is master of none" is to be heeded. I mentioned that lawyers look up laws, and then immediately look for the exceptions, and PTRAVEL (incorrectly) said it wasn't so. He also misunderstood when I said we hire lawyers because they know the technicalities, where he assumed I meant the technical meaning of the wording in statutes. Lawyers know the technical requirements for the practice of law; which is to say what has to be done, and in what order, for the legal system to function. That is why people who do know how to read and understand a statute hire lawyers to manage their legal affairs. In fact, lawyers virtually all hire other lawyers to do exactly that too! On a regular basis! For example, I know a large number of lawyers who virtually *never* enter a court room, and would never begin to consider acting as an attorney before any trial court. They *hire* a trial lawyer, every time. In essence, the General Counsel for any large company is *not* a litigator. PTRAVEL is out of his field and appears to have little expertise in this area. He says he practices IP law, and I assume he knows that field well. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > "PTRAVEL"wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > someone's privacy in exactly the way described; in fact, they *have* been > used in that way. Wow! Two people who miss the point! As for my credentials, spend some time on google. >> The point is that whether a photographer is standing >>> on public property or private property has *nothing* to do with [quoted text clipped - 293 lines] >>> engage in that type of exchange; hence I am not at all >>> impressed. > Someone who has drawn the curtains has an expectation of privacy in his or > her own home, and the fact that someone "in public" can see it **with the > aid of a camera** - we ARE in a camera NG, discussing the legalities of > taking photographs, you know - does not necessarily mean that the person > with the camera has a right to take pictures (or even be looking). If I can see it, it gets photographed - and I don't really care how small the crack is. If I can see beyond it from a public location, all I ask is for people inside to smile because candid camera may be crawling up your butt. > If you intend to be conveying"If you're in public, and can see it with the > unaided human eye", I have to say that for an alleged attorney, you do a > very poor job of defining your terms. Actually, PT is defining it pretty much the same way my own attorney does, and has for quite a while now. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> So first you say it isn't pertinent, and then point out exactly >> how it is. > >I didn't say your hypothetical wasn't pertinent. I said it was idiotic -- >along the lines of, "Suppose you're Superman and have x-ray vision . . ." Absurd. I can't buy x-ray vision, but telephoto lenses are fairly common consumer products. So are night vision goggles and a number of other equally useful tools. >As I said, there was always one in every law school class. Keep trying with the gratuitous insults counselor, but it *does* cast a large shadow on everything you say here. It certainly says that you *know* you can't argue points on their merit. > The point is that whether a photographer is standing >> on public property or private property has *nothing* to do with >> whether another person has a right to privacy. > >And that's simply wrong. Okay, you say I'm wrong... >The test, as I've said before, is whether an >individual has an expectation of privacy. Now, as before you say I'm right. >As a general rule (and one >photographers who read this newsgroup can use), if you're in public and can >see it, you can photograph it. So what I said was *exactly* correct. What *is* your point? Do you think "see it" means with a 1000mm lense on a camera? >> Sorry to get your ire up just because someone uses an example >> and concise language to make the fallacy more obvious than what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You were and are wrong. If I were wrong, you would stick to the merits of your points rather than fabricating a fantasy opponent. >>>> And I was polite in doing so, though your response is infantile. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >And that is absolutely, totally and completely wrong. Absolutely? Totally? Completely? >It doesn't matter >whether a "thing" is "public," whatever that is supposed to mean. If it is >a thing, i.e. inanimate, Ah, none of absolutely totally or completely applies to things that are animate? Ooops. There goes another bit of hyperbole out the window... >and you can see it in public (and you're not >Superman, using your x-ray vision), you can photograph it. Absolutely, totally, and completely? Except for things you can see only with a telephoto lense. There goes more hyperbole... >The test for >individuals is whether they have an expectation of privacy. Oh, well of course. But that is exactly what I have said several times. It is *not* whether the photographer is standing on public property that counts. I *am* so glad that you agree with my point! >The rule of law >is that, if they are in public, they do not. Clearly you are not being complete. You are once again playing little word games of the kind that make people think "lawyer" means "liar". You are using a *different* meaning here for "public" than was used previously above. Your statement is true for one sense of "public", and not for the sense that "public property" conveys. One means "Open to the knowledge or view of all". The other means "Of or pertaining to or belonging to the people; relating to community". A keen difference in meaning, and great for people who play word games. But I'll pick those off *every* time you try it! >As I said, you've made it very clear that you don't understand the law. It is clear you either play word games or don't comprehend English well, one or the other. Cheap entertainment I suppose, but it is also low on the integrity scale when used in an otherwise serious discussion. >> (Don't play word games, it won't get you anywhere |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message