Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

rawr · 05-12-2016, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by bakerking31

Without a signed release these photos would be useless to the paper.

For commercial use, yes - like if he said ' hi - I would like to use your photo in a stock image. Can you sign this model release for me?'

No model release is required for news, photo-journalism, non-commercial, or where the person is only incidentally in the image (a face in the crowd, a bystander etc).

---------- Post added 2016-05-13 at 03:11 PM ----------

Originally posted by bakerking31

Then why did he approach the woman for a release? I don't know his exact purpose for it but it sounds like commercial work for the paper not journalism work

From the article:
He said he took a photograph of a woman feeding a duck at the lake, but when he identified himself to ask for her permission to use the photograph, the woman refused.
“I told her that was fine, but she insisted on me deleting the photographs,” Pardo said. “I told her I couldn’t do that as it was a public place, although I could request that her photograph not be used.

Sounds like the conversation went like this:

'Hi, I'm X from the VictorVille Daily Press. I took your photo. Just letting you know we might use it in the Daily Press. Is that OK?'

She then said no, he said OK he won't use it. She then insisted the images be deleted, he said no, then she called her thugs.

joergens.mi · 05-12-2016, 10:37 PM

He should have respected the personality rights of the pearson an delete the photo. Otherwise it is simply paparazzi.

And I can understand the overreaction of the people, when they are photographed without agreement, because very often they can be found in the social media afterwards - "I only said it won't be presented in the newspaper. This behaviour is a reaction to the big numbers of papparazi-photographers.

In this situation, i would have called the police!

dafbp · 05-13-2016, 05:07 AM

She is either hiding something, or she knows how useful the police is when there are no fines involved, so she called her thugs.

He should have been expecting the worse when she brought company, and dialled 911 just in case. Hope he learned his lesson and gets better quickly.

As if it wasn't bad enough for plane spotters to be branded as terrorists, now this...

rawr · 05-13-2016, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by dafbp

As if it wasn't bad enough for plane spotters to be branded as terrorists, now this...

Best to stick to shooting macro, I think.

Bugs or flowers wont call the police on you, or beat you up.

jawsy · 05-13-2016, 05:29 AM

For those suggesting he should've deleted the image, what if it had been a film roll? He has to throw away the roll? Grow up. He was working and being respectful to the photographed subject by asking for permission.

fzrcraig · 05-13-2016, 06:12 AM

OK, I'll play "what if". What if she was part of the witness protection program and publishing a photo of her revealed her identity to a perpetrator.

MikeD · 05-13-2016, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by jawsy

For those suggesting he should've deleted the image, what if it had been a film roll? He has to throw away the roll? Grow up. He was working and being respectful to the photographed subject by asking for permission.

But it wasn't a roll of film it was one digital image which could have easily been deleted, problem solved. Although he was respectful and asked for a release, why did he even ask for one if it was really for news not for an ad etc. Then he used the lame excuse that he couldn't delete the file because he was working. He also said " he would ask that her picture not be used" not much reassurance for the woman in that. All he would have had to do is show her the camera back and delete the shot in front of her, problem solved. If he really wasn't going to use it why not delete it in front of her.

**savoche** · 05-13-2016, 06:37 AM - **6 Likes**

I can't believe anyone can defend attacking someone physically over something like this. Mind-boggling.

Murfy · 05-13-2016, 07:54 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by savoche

I can't believe anyone can defend attacking someone physically over something like this. Mind-boggling.

I am surprised no one asked what he was wearing, or said that he should not have been there to being with. What kind of satisfaction do people want? When will not be ok for people to attack another person?

I am sure some of it is because people want to hold themselves at a distant and say "it will never happen to me, I would never (fill in the blank)" but that's pure fallacy.

My hopes for a speedy recovery and these people, who committed a crime, are caught quickly.

bakerking31 · 05-13-2016, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by savoche

I can't believe anyone can defend attacking someone physically over something like this. Mind-boggling.

So if I go to Oakland and start yelling racist comments and get beat up, would you be surprised when no one defends me?

Both are examples of free speech ... In both cases the person didn't break the law.

There was more than once where the photographer could have ended the incident and he choose to push the issue with the wrong people. I don't feel bad for him, the photo wasn't going to be used anyway. If I was his boss I would have fired him for this. A photo of a person feeding a duck isn't worth bad press

**savoche** · 05-13-2016, 08:04 AM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by bakerking31

So if I go to Oakland and start yelling racist comments and get beat up, would you be surprised when no one defends me?

I would never defend violent action for any spoken word. If someone breaks the law, call the police.

Quote:

Both are examples of free speech ... In both cases the person didn't break the law.

There was more than once where the photographer could have ended the incident and he choose to push the issue with the wrong people. I don't feel bad for him, the photo wasn't going to be used anyway. If I was his boss I would have fired him for this. A photo of a person feeding a duck isn't worth bad press

You live in a reality very different from mine. I much prefer mine.

Murfy · 05-13-2016, 08:04 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bakerking31

So if I go to Oakland and start yelling racist comments and get beat up, would you be surprised when no one defends me?

Both are examples of free speech ... In both cases the person didn't break the law.

There was more than once where the photographer could have ended the incident and he choose to push the issue with the wrong people. I don't feel bad for him, the photo wasn't going to be used anyway. If I was his boss I would have fired him for this. A photo of a person feeding a duck isn't worth bad press

You are basing your entire argument on the fact they would have not done anything after he deleted the file. Can I ask how you know they would have been fine with the file being deleted? You know they would have not grabbed the camera anyway and stolen it? You have no "story" after he deletes the file because in your mind that is a happy ending, but it doesn't always work out like that.

Your whole basis for an argument is that someone committing a crime is thinking logically. Where does this happen?

bakerking31 · 05-13-2016, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Murfy

You are basing your entire argument on the fact they would have not done anything after he deleted the file. Can I ask how you know they would have been fine with the file being deleted? You know they would have not grabbed the camera anyway and stolen it? You have no "story" after he deletes the file because in your mind that is a happy ending, but it doesn't always work out like that.

Your whole basis for an argument is that someone committing a crime is thinking logically. Where does this happen?

Well the article makes it pretty clear the person just wanted her photo deleted. When the photographer refused is when the situation escalated. Then he refused again when the other guys showed up. They gave him a chance.

Its far less of a jump to conclusions to say that if he deleted the photo the incident would have been over than to say that he would have been beat up either way considering they asked him multiple times and concluded by trying to destroy the camera (not steal it).

Murfy · 05-13-2016, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by bakerking31

Well the article makes it pretty clear the person just wanted her photo deleted. When the photographer refused is when the situation escalated. Then he refused again when the other guys showed up. They gave him a chance.

Its far less of a jump to conclusions to say that if he deleted the photo the incident would have been over than to say that he would have been beat up either way considering they asked him multiple times and concluded by trying to destroy the camera (not steal it).

I can't even comprehend why someone would spend the time arguing this. I see no other point for you to continue your comments other than to derail this post to make the post about you. That is what it feels like, and I find it very odd.

Back to what the post is about - to the op again, very sorry this happened to your nephew and I hope they find the attackers.

MikeD · 05-13-2016, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Mistlefoot

Your post has offended me. Please delete it.

Who decides?

Apples and Oranges.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People A Pale Tourist beeing attacked by Roman Soldiers	Janse	Post Your Photos!	6	08-14-2015 09:44 PM
Press: Record Growth in Expanding Mirrorless Digital Camera Market!	Clavius	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	12	06-05-2015 11:13 AM
Eleven years ago we were attacked so we get to do whatever we want forever!	boriscleto	General Talk	8	10-02-2012 07:07 AM
Pentax attacked in TV ad	Falcons	Pentax News and Rumors	18	05-12-2009 11:51 PM
This press photographer either has ...	Damn Brit	General Talk	6	12-23-2008 04:47 PM

05-12-2016, 09:58 PM	#16
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by bakerking31 Without a signed release these photos would be useless to the paper. For commercial use, yes - like if he said ' hi - I would like to use your photo in a stock image. Can you sign this model release for me?' No model release is required for news, photo-journalism, non-commercial, or where the person is only incidentally in the image (a face in the crowd, a bystander etc). ---------- Post added 2016-05-13 at 03:11 PM ---------- Originally posted by bakerking31 Then why did he approach the woman for a release? I don't know his exact purpose for it but it sounds like commercial work for the paper not journalism work From the article: He said he took a photograph of a woman feeding a duck at the lake, but when he identified himself to ask for her permission to use the photograph, the woman refused. “I told her that was fine, but she insisted on me deleting the photographs,” Pardo said. “I told her I couldn’t do that as it was a public place, although I could request that her photograph not be used. Sounds like the conversation went like this: 'Hi, I'm X from the VictorVille Daily Press. I took your photo. Just letting you know we might use it in the Daily Press. Is that OK?' She then said no, he said OK he won't use it. She then insisted the images be deleted, he said no, then she called her thugs.

05-12-2016, 10:37 PM	#17
joergens.mi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 408	He should have respected the personality rights of the pearson an delete the photo. Otherwise it is simply paparazzi. And I can understand the overreaction of the people, when they are photographed without agreement, because very often they can be found in the social media afterwards - "I only said it won't be presented in the newspaper. This behaviour is a reaction to the big numbers of papparazi-photographers. In this situation, i would have called the police!

05-13-2016, 05:07 AM	#18
dafbp Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 233	She is either hiding something, or she knows how useful the police is when there are no fines involved, so she called her thugs. He should have been expecting the worse when she brought company, and dialled 911 just in case. Hope he learned his lesson and gets better quickly. As if it wasn't bad enough for plane spotters to be branded as terrorists, now this...

05-13-2016, 05:09 AM	#19
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by dafbp As if it wasn't bad enough for plane spotters to be branded as terrorists, now this... Best to stick to shooting macro, I think. Bugs or flowers wont call the police on you, or beat you up.

05-13-2016, 05:29 AM	#20
jawsy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 422	For those suggesting he should've deleted the image, what if it had been a film roll? He has to throw away the roll? Grow up. He was working and being respectful to the photographed subject by asking for permission.

05-13-2016, 06:12 AM	#21
fzrcraig New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 21	OK, I'll play "what if". What if she was part of the witness protection program and publishing a photo of her revealed her identity to a perpetrator.

05-13-2016, 06:34 AM	#22
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	Originally posted by jawsy For those suggesting he should've deleted the image, what if it had been a film roll? He has to throw away the roll? Grow up. He was working and being respectful to the photographed subject by asking for permission. But it wasn't a roll of film it was one digital image which could have easily been deleted, problem solved. Although he was respectful and asked for a release, why did he even ask for one if it was really for news not for an ad etc. Then he used the lame excuse that he couldn't delete the file because he was working. He also said " he would ask that her picture not be used" not much reassurance for the woman in that. All he would have had to do is show her the camera back and delete the shot in front of her, problem solved. If he really wasn't going to use it why not delete it in front of her.

05-13-2016, 06:37 AM - 6 Likes	#23
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,312	I can't believe anyone can defend attacking someone physically over something like this. Mind-boggling.

05-13-2016, 07:54 AM - 1 Like	#24
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by savoche I can't believe anyone can defend attacking someone physically over something like this. Mind-boggling. I am surprised no one asked what he was wearing, or said that he should not have been there to being with. What kind of satisfaction do people want? When will not be ok for people to attack another person? I am sure some of it is because people want to hold themselves at a distant and say "it will never happen to me, I would never (fill in the blank)" but that's pure fallacy. My hopes for a speedy recovery and these people, who committed a crime, are caught quickly.

05-13-2016, 07:55 AM	#25
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Originally posted by savoche I can't believe anyone can defend attacking someone physically over something like this. Mind-boggling. So if I go to Oakland and start yelling racist comments and get beat up, would you be surprised when no one defends me? Both are examples of free speech ... In both cases the person didn't break the law. There was more than once where the photographer could have ended the incident and he choose to push the issue with the wrong people. I don't feel bad for him, the photo wasn't going to be used anyway. If I was his boss I would have fired him for this. A photo of a person feeding a duck isn't worth bad press

05-13-2016, 08:04 AM - 4 Likes	#26
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,312	Originally posted by bakerking31 So if I go to Oakland and start yelling racist comments and get beat up, would you be surprised when no one defends me? I would never defend violent action for any spoken word. If someone breaks the law, call the police. Quote: Both are examples of free speech ... In both cases the person didn't break the law. There was more than once where the photographer could have ended the incident and he choose to push the issue with the wrong people. I don't feel bad for him, the photo wasn't going to be used anyway. If I was his boss I would have fired him for this. A photo of a person feeding a duck isn't worth bad press You live in a reality very different from mine. I much prefer mine.

05-13-2016, 08:04 AM - 1 Like	#27
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by bakerking31 So if I go to Oakland and start yelling racist comments and get beat up, would you be surprised when no one defends me? Both are examples of free speech ... In both cases the person didn't break the law. There was more than once where the photographer could have ended the incident and he choose to push the issue with the wrong people. I don't feel bad for him, the photo wasn't going to be used anyway. If I was his boss I would have fired him for this. A photo of a person feeding a duck isn't worth bad press You are basing your entire argument on the fact they would have not done anything after he deleted the file. Can I ask how you know they would have been fine with the file being deleted? You know they would have not grabbed the camera anyway and stolen it? You have no "story" after he deletes the file because in your mind that is a happy ending, but it doesn't always work out like that. Your whole basis for an argument is that someone committing a crime is thinking logically. Where does this happen?

05-13-2016, 08:15 AM	#28
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Originally posted by Murfy You are basing your entire argument on the fact they would have not done anything after he deleted the file. Can I ask how you know they would have been fine with the file being deleted? You know they would have not grabbed the camera anyway and stolen it? You have no "story" after he deletes the file because in your mind that is a happy ending, but it doesn't always work out like that. Your whole basis for an argument is that someone committing a crime is thinking logically. Where does this happen? Well the article makes it pretty clear the person just wanted her photo deleted. When the photographer refused is when the situation escalated. Then he refused again when the other guys showed up. They gave him a chance. Its far less of a jump to conclusions to say that if he deleted the photo the incident would have been over than to say that he would have been beat up either way considering they asked him multiple times and concluded by trying to destroy the camera (not steal it).

05-13-2016, 08:34 AM	#29
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by bakerking31 Well the article makes it pretty clear the person just wanted her photo deleted. When the photographer refused is when the situation escalated. Then he refused again when the other guys showed up. They gave him a chance. Its far less of a jump to conclusions to say that if he deleted the photo the incident would have been over than to say that he would have been beat up either way considering they asked him multiple times and concluded by trying to destroy the camera (not steal it). I can't even comprehend why someone would spend the time arguing this. I see no other point for you to continue your comments other than to derail this post to make the post about you. That is what it feels like, and I find it very odd. Back to what the post is about - to the op again, very sorry this happened to your nephew and I hope they find the attackers.

05-13-2016, 08:39 AM	#30
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	Originally posted by Mistlefoot Your post has offended me. Please delete it. Who decides? Apples and Oranges.

Press Photographer attacked in So California

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!