[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: sleeping in turing

Tue Jan 15 18:02:04 UTC 2013

I am a professional photographer and do actually know CA law. Unless the
photographer is in your face and actually has touched you (the assault and
battery portion of the interaction) you don't actually have a leg to stand
on. Someone photographing you from across a room is not at all the same as
a paparazzi in your face after having followed you for miles, pushing up on
you. And furthermore, often those paparazzi are in fact awarded damages and
successfully push assault charges against those people who break their
cameras (I know and occasionally work with a lot of people who otherwise
work as paparazzi and other types of investigative journalists who push the
boundaries of public photography vs. stalking.) So your "some tv news
cameramen i talked to" advice goes directly in the face of the professional
advice and knowledge I have learned from our legal team and other
professional colleagues.

Secondly: noisebridge isn't at all like peet's, which is private property
that provides a for money service to the public. Peet's is not actually
public space, because you are required to purchase goods or services in
order to use their space. This means you need permission to photograph
anything that is not in public view on the premises (ie i can still stand
outside on the sidewalk and shoot through the windows all I want, but if I
want to photograph inside I would need permission.) Noisebridge is much
more like the lobby of a corporate building, a private property which is
held as a private lease, but is open as public access space without fees or
money changing hands. These are two very different entities legally
speaking as far as photography goes. The way the judge will view it is if
the property is open to the public at large without needing a payment of a
sorts (either via goods or services) to access it, if this is true, then it
is considered public space (regardless of it's other status as using a
privately held lease) and photography is permitted in there. This is why
journalists are allowed to follow people into office building lobbies, but
then cannot follow into the offices of people (because those offices are
not open to the public, and therefore are not public space. tho they could
shoot through any open doors or windows) The corollary to this of course
being that if you don't like someone photographing, if you have the
authority in that space you could always ask them to leave, however you
cannot actually stop them from taking pictures or demand they remove/delete
the images from their drives. This has held up in court repeatedly,
including repeatedly in SF down at 555 California (where a lot of
politicians and other famous sf people have offices) in their public
square/lobby area. The only thing you aren't in fact allowed to photograph
in public are things which violate other kinds of privacy, for instance
someone's pin number. If someone was able to prove that you photoed or
videoed their pin number that is considered a breach of privacy regardless
of whether it happened in public (and this is how those people who lay out
pinhole cameras over ATMs get tagged.) The same for trying to photo
someone's weiner in a public restroom (topical reference.)

Now, all of this is hypothetical at best, but I am pretty solid on the
viewpoint that if i were to photograph you at Noisebridge, and you broke my
camera, the judge would absolutely award me for damages and knock you for
destruction of property, and potentially assault if you actually grabbed it
out of my hands.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Gopiballava Flaherty <gopiballava at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Yes, there are situations in which a person with a camera could be a
> legitimate threat. But your initial description was not one of those
> situations. The scenario you described could easily occur without the
> photographer even knowing they were doing something wrong. Your invitation
> said it was ok to vandalize *anybody's* equipment for taking a photo. How
> many visitors to NB know about the no photo rule?
>
> Your claim about the right to stand your ground is in conflict with what I
> learned in class in PA, but it is possible that CA law is different. In
> most cases when you are not in your house you have a duty to retreat if you
> can do so safely. The duty to retreat is normally conditional on knowing
> that you can do so in complete safety to yourself and others. That's a high
> standard and probably one that can't be met when you're in a room with
> somebody at NB. Retreat in a small room makes no sense.
>
> Celebrities do get in trouble for destroying cameras:
>
> http://www.epagini.com/2010/05/sean-penn-got-3-years-probation/
>
>
> http://cdn.mediatakeout.com/26565/breaking-news-kanye-arrested-for-fighting-with-paparazzi.html
>
> What you also probably don't hear about is when a celebrity smashes a
> camera, and then their publicist calls the photographer and offers to take
> them on a camera shopping trip in exchange for no police report. I don't
> actually know how often that happens but it seems like a likely scenario.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> gopi at iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 18:10, maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *an excellent and non-antagonistic/non-judgemental/non-drama response with
> references...
>
> *a caveat to your info is that "when accosted by a device of any nature in
> someone's hand(s) or on their person it can be considered a weapon and/or
> mode of threatening the security of your person" and you have the
> un-alienable right to stand your ground...
>
> *a really good example of this is the tv 'news' cameramen that have told
> me honestly and it has been backed up by a couple judges that if they get
> right in someone's face with their camera the person can totally throw the
> camera down without prejudice or liability...
> but of course they rely on most not knowing this and sometimes consider
> the shot(s) worth the damage since they don't pay for it anyway...
>
> *in other cases judges rarely rule against someone being stalked by
> individuals or paparazzi and there have been many cases of paparazzi's gear
> being 'disabled' at no liability to the defendant(s)...
>
> *yes, there is a 'grey area' about noisebridge as the public is welcome to
> come in BUT it is a privately held lease with a core private membership on
> private property sooo...
> it makes it 'technically' not public (like peet's coffee et.al)
> think of it like a park on private property...
>
> at the end of the day,
> beings secretly photographing people and seeking to create name lists is
> the total polar opposite of what NB is all about and makes A LOT of beings
> that would normally come by and do/share/create kewl things...NOT.
> but it does reflect the agenda of what's going on across OUR country and
> the desire to manifest a stazi-like environment...
>
> in the past there were fucked up trolls doing/trying to do  facial
> recognition(leo'esque) on beings at the space...
>
> and someone invited a federal agent(that showed their badge) in at the
> bottom door(with no warrant), gave them a tour, offered them cookies and
> coffee, and...
>
>
>
> message ends
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:17 PM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:
>
>> actually they can sue you. your right is that they cannot monetize your
>> image, ie sell it, without having you release your rights to not have your
>> image sold. but anyone can take a picture of you in any public place
>> (noisebridge would count as public since it is specifically open to the
>> public at large, and for the public use. it falls in the same category as
>> malls), and you do not in fact have the right to break their camera or
>> demand they delete the photos. if you do break their camera they can in
>> fact have you arrested for theft, and can in fact sue you to replace the
>> camera and any other damages that may occur. if they are a professional
>> photographer and had images on it they obtained rights to and planned on
>> monetizing they can sue you for the lost value as well.
>>
>> From Andrew Kantor's excellent photographers rights essay:
>>
>> "Further, they cannot demand your camera or your digital media or film.
>> Well, they can demand it, but you are under no obligation to give it to
>> them. In fact, only an officer of the law or court can take it from you,
>> and then only with a court order. And if they try or threaten you? They can
>> be charged with theft or coercion, and you may even have civil recourse.
>> Cool. (For details, see "The Photographer's Right.")
>>
>> It gets better.
>>
>> You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not
>> it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are
>> most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if
>> you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot."
>>
>>
>> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
>>  http://content.photojojo.com/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM, maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] sleeping in turing
>>> To: Jake <jake at spaz.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> bullshit.
>>> although NB doesn't have 'rules' per literal definition,
>>> it has ALWAYS been policy NOT to take photos in the space without asking
>>> and/or announcing you are doing it and what for, or someone else has put
>>> something on the list that people are coming to space and will be
>>> filming/photos like mitch does when he sends folks on by the space....
>>>
>>> this is most UNEXCELLENT and fucking lame and not the first time this
>>> person has suggested doing it...
>>> still haven't found out what 'kind' of badge he has or reports to, if
>>> anyone knows please make it public...
>>>
>>> i invite anyone and everyone who catches anyone taking pictures of
>>> people WITHOUT their knowledge and permission to grab the camera, take it
>>> straight to the dirty room or wherever, and get to pounding it into e-waste
>>> making sure you have destroyed the disc and/or film...
>>>
>>> and this is your right by the way and NO, they can't sue you so no
>>> worries (great hacking too)...
>>>
>>> sleepers can be dealt with in many other ways...
>>> fascinating that beings would need to be told how but here are just a
>>> few starters *
>>> *1st time merely quietly wake them and calmly say IN A COOL WAY "hey,
>>> just letting you know the house doesn't want people sleeping and i'm just
>>> letting you know before others come and snap/yell at you..."
>>> *walk by clapping loudly, clearing your bronchial cavity, or singing
>>> *move one of the portable audio devices next to them and put on the
>>> spanish or chinese station for 3 minutes (if they haven't risen start
>>> dropping books)
>>>
>>> been said way too many times already but getting rid of ALL the couches
>>> WILL deplete number of sleepers, bedbugs, stank, and filth immediately...
>>>
>>>
>>> message ends
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim (and everyone else who finds sleepers)
>>>>
>>>> Next time, please get pictures and/or names!
>>>>
>>>> it's not that hard, and it will help us deal with repeat offenders.
>>>>
>>>> keep in mind that squatters are taking advantage of the fact that we
>>>> are not good at tracking them because many hackers prefer to avoid awkward
>>>> social interactions.
>>>>
>>>> Do it!  Ask them their name, so you can post it to this list.  If they
>>>> are asleep or pretending to be asleep (a common tactic) take a photo, and
>>>> post it to this list.
>>>>
>>>> -jake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>     I got here around 9:15 AM and went into
>>>> the Turing classroom. The door was closed
>>>> and the air smelled like fice-hour farts.
>>>>     Two guys seems asleep, one had just left
>>>> the room, one was sitting in a heap on the
>>>> floor and one was in a chair, kind of dazed.
>>>>
>>>>     Not excellent in my view.
>>>> jim the snitch
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.**noisebridge.net<Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss<https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> hep
>> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>

-- 
hep
hepic photography || www.hepic.net
    dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130115/24b9b0a3/attachment-0003.html>