March 18, 2007
新聞稿／新聞照片的著作權
轉自經濟部智慧財產局Ｑ＆Ａ：http://www.tipo.gov.tw/copyright/qaContent.asp?subtitle=%B0%D1%A1B%B5%DB%A7%40%A4%CE%B5%DB%A7%40%A4H&type=%B5%DB%A7%40%C5v
十七
問：現在的新聞稿，習慣上都冠上記者姓名，新聞照片更是張張都署名，這樣的情形，著作權屬報社？還是屬記者？利用時如何避免著作權方面之糾紛？
答：新聞稿，如果是單純為傳達事實之新聞報導所作成之語文著作，不得為著作權之標的，則任 何人都可以利用。此外受著作權法保護之新聞稿及照片如公開發表時冠上記者姓名，以表示其為著作人者，推定該記者為著作人，但若有反證足以證明著作人並非該 記者，例如記者與其受僱之報社約定其職務上之著作由報社為著作人，則報社享有著作財產權。 又依著作權法之規定，受雇人職務上完成之著作，以受雇人為著作人，但是著作財產權則歸屬雇用人，也就是說，報社雇用的記者所寫的新聞稿，在雙方未約定以報 社為著作人的情況下，記者是著作人，享有著作人格權，報社是著作財產權人，享有著作財產權，所以報社刊登記者的新聞稿及新聞照片，必須標示記者的姓名，否 則有可能會侵害記者的姓名表示權。當然報社可以和記者約定，記者不行使著作人格權，此種情況下，報社可以不標示記者的姓名。 至於第三人要利用該新聞稿或新聞照片的話，除符合著作權法第四十四條至第六十五條合理使用之情形下，仍須徵得著作財產權人報社的同意或授權。 如果記者和報社自己約定，記者職務上的著作由該記者享有著作財產權的話，這種情形下，要利用該記者的作品，自需取得該記者之同意或授權。（§9Ⅰ-4、§ 10、§11、§13Ⅰ）
十七
問：現在的新聞稿，習慣上都冠上記者姓名，新聞照片更是張張都署名，這樣的情形，著作權屬報社？還是屬記者？利用時如何避免著作權方面之糾紛？
答：新聞稿，如果是單純為傳達事實之新聞報導所作成之語文著作，不得為著作權之標的，則任 何人都可以利用。此外受著作權法保護之新聞稿及照片如公開發表時冠上記者姓名，以表示其為著作人者，推定該記者為著作人，但若有反證足以證明著作人並非該 記者，例如記者與其受僱之報社約定其職務上之著作由報社為著作人，則報社享有著作財產權。 又依著作權法之規定，受雇人職務上完成之著作，以受雇人為著作人，但是著作財產權則歸屬雇用人，也就是說，報社雇用的記者所寫的新聞稿，在雙方未約定以報 社為著作人的情況下，記者是著作人，享有著作人格權，報社是著作財產權人，享有著作財產權，所以報社刊登記者的新聞稿及新聞照片，必須標示記者的姓名，否 則有可能會侵害記者的姓名表示權。當然報社可以和記者約定，記者不行使著作人格權，此種情況下，報社可以不標示記者的姓名。 至於第三人要利用該新聞稿或新聞照片的話，除符合著作權法第四十四條至第六十五條合理使用之情形下，仍須徵得著作財產權人報社的同意或授權。 如果記者和報社自己約定，記者職務上的著作由該記者享有著作財產權的話，這種情形下，要利用該記者的作品，自需取得該記者之同意或授權。（§9Ⅰ-4、§ 10、§11、§13Ⅰ）
November 25, 2006
【轉】Google Reaches Copyright Deal With Belgians
【轉自】http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/technology/25google.html?th&emc=th
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Published: November 25, 2006
Google, the world’s most-used Internet search engine, reached a settlement with Belgian photographers and journalists yesterday in a copyright dispute over how Google’s news service links to newspaper content.
The agreement was made with the Belgian copyright groups Sofam, representing about 3,700 photographers, and Scam, on behalf of journalists. In September, Google lost a copyright suit initially filed by Copiepresse, a group representing French- and German-language newspapers in Belgium. That case is being reheard, but the company has removed links to 17 papers from its Google News page.
Copyright disputes with Google compelled Microsoft to remove Web site links to Belgian newspapers last month and highlighted the global issue of whether traditional copyright protections apply to Internet search services.
“We reached an agreement with Sofam and Scam that will help us make extensive use of their content,” Jessica Powell, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a phone interview yesterday. She declined to give details of the agreement or say whether it involved paying the groups for the content, and declined to say whether Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., was considering similar accords with the newspapers.
The company has a similar case with Agence France-Presse, which protested Google’s linking to the news agency’s articles and pictures in the United States and in France last year.
A Brussels court heard arguments yesterday from groups that remain in the lawsuit. Copiepresse sued in February, and a court ruling Sept. 5 forced Google to remove Google News links to the newspapers or face a fine of a million euros daily. Google complied on Sept. 18.
Google, which was not represented in court the first time in the Copiepresse case, asked the court for a new hearing. “Today was a reconsideration of the case,” Ms. Powell said.
A ruling is expected by early January, the court said.
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Published: November 25, 2006
Google, the world’s most-used Internet search engine, reached a settlement with Belgian photographers and journalists yesterday in a copyright dispute over how Google’s news service links to newspaper content.
The agreement was made with the Belgian copyright groups Sofam, representing about 3,700 photographers, and Scam, on behalf of journalists. In September, Google lost a copyright suit initially filed by Copiepresse, a group representing French- and German-language newspapers in Belgium. That case is being reheard, but the company has removed links to 17 papers from its Google News page.
Copyright disputes with Google compelled Microsoft to remove Web site links to Belgian newspapers last month and highlighted the global issue of whether traditional copyright protections apply to Internet search services.
“We reached an agreement with Sofam and Scam that will help us make extensive use of their content,” Jessica Powell, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a phone interview yesterday. She declined to give details of the agreement or say whether it involved paying the groups for the content, and declined to say whether Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., was considering similar accords with the newspapers.
The company has a similar case with Agence France-Presse, which protested Google’s linking to the news agency’s articles and pictures in the United States and in France last year.
A Brussels court heard arguments yesterday from groups that remain in the lawsuit. Copiepresse sued in February, and a court ruling Sept. 5 forced Google to remove Google News links to the newspapers or face a fine of a million euros daily. Google complied on Sept. 18.
Google, which was not represented in court the first time in the Copiepresse case, asked the court for a new hearing. “Today was a reconsideration of the case,” Ms. Powell said.
A ruling is expected by early January, the court said.
November 7, 2006
【轉】臺北捷運公司藝文廊出借須知
最近正在為移工攝影工作坊第二期學員申請明年展覽的檔期。原則上，我們還是希望能在開放式的公共空間展出，在有限的時間內能有最密集的參觀人次，且場地費用是在可負擔的範圍內。台北捷運中山站的藝文廊因此成了首選之ㄧ。
在寫企劃書的過程中必須很仔細的讀「申請須知」上的條文，避免因不符規定被退件槓龜。但是看到其中某些規則還是不免覺得好笑又無力。
比方第四條「展出內容規定」之第一項：凡有下列情形之一者，本公司得拒絕藝文廊出借之申請：
１、形體裸露、意識猥褻、藝術水準低落或違反公序良俗及法令規定之情形者。
６、申請人之作品本公司認為有損本公司形象者。
裸露？好吧，公共空間嘛。意識猥褻？又來了。大法官針對此法條開倒車般的釋憲言猶在耳。藝術水準低落及違反公序良俗就不去斤斤計較了，但是這「申請人之作品本公司認為有損本公司形象者」可能會是什麼呢？實在太太太模糊了。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
下文【轉自】http://www.trtc.com.tw/c/apply.asp?catid=%E6%B0%91%E7%9C%BE%E7%94%B3%E8%BE%A6%E6%A5%AD%E5%8B%99&small=%E8%87%BA%E5%8C%97%E6%8D%B7%E9%81%8B%E5%85%AC%E5%8F%B8%E8%97%9D%E6%96%87%E5%BB%8A%E5%87%BA%E5%80%9F%E7%94%B3%E8%AB%8B
臺北捷運公司藝文廊出借須知
民國93年7月22日修正
一、目的：
臺北捷運公司（以下簡稱本公司）為規範提供公眾借用捷運沿線藝文廊空間，特訂定本須知。
二、出借使用時間：
（一）展出時間配合本公司之營運時間（原則上為每日上午六時起至晚上十二時止），全年對外開放。
（二）每次申請借用藝文廊以不超過一個月為原則；申請借用日期即包含進場佈置及退場拆卸時間。逾越日期者依本須知第十一點第二項加收管理費。
三、藝文廊位置及費用：
中山站、中正紀念堂站、忠孝復興站(平面圖及360度環景實境)（詳細位置及管理費詳如管理費價目表），本公司得依實際狀況及需要調整資料。
四、展出內容規定：
（一）凡有下列情形之一者，本公司得拒絕藝文廊出借之申請：
１、形體裸露、意識猥褻、藝術水準低落或違反公序良俗及法令規定之情形者。
２、展出作品涉及政治性、商業性或侵害著作權等智慧財產權者。
３、展出作品數量無法合理放置達藝文廊整體長度之三分之二者。
４、曾申請藝文廊借用有違約紀錄，且仍於停權期間者。
５、展出作品裝置簡陋或無裱框者。
６、申請人之作品本公司認為有損本公司形象者。
（二）本公司對使用單位提出之場地申請有審核權，凡申請展覽內容不符本須知規定者，不予出借場地。
（三）凡申請人送件至本公司後，無論核准與否，概不退件。
（四）本公司場地僅供申請人展出作品，對展出作品不負任何保管及安全責任。
（五）本公司如活動上之需要或其他原因須使用藝文廊場地時，無論是否與原定單位有檔期上之衝突，均有權優先使用，原申請人願意無條件接受本公司之安排，不得異議。
（六）申請人應保證其展出作品內容或取材無侵犯第三人智慧財產權及其他權利等情事，如有違反前述情況，由申請人負責，與本公司無任何關係。
（七）政府所屬各機關及各級學校申請藝文廊借用時，本公司仍需收取保證金、管理費，惟如係本公司主、協辦之活動或所邀約之展覽，得免繳保證金、管理費及免填申請文件。
五、申請程序及方式：
（一）申請資格：凡社區、社團、學校、公民營機關（構）、團體及個人皆可申請展出。
（二）檔期預約：
１、預約文件：請檢附企劃書或草案（內容包含展出計劃、日期、作品數量及大小、佈置方式等）由展出作品中選取十張照片或圖片，黏貼或列印於A4紙上；預約結果本公司將以電話通知。
２、取消預約：本公司同意申請人之檔期預約後，申請人未能如期展出者，應於該展覽活動日前三十日（日曆天）通知本公司，如無正當理由且未於上述日期內通知本公司者，自原定該展覽活動結束日起算，停止申請人借用本公司藝文廊申請權（以下簡稱本申請權）一年。
（三）申請文件：本公司同意申請人之檔期預約後，應於申請展出日起算前三十日至九十日內（日曆天）提送申請文件；若為個人申請，則免備１、２款文件。
１、委託書（如附件一)。
２、機關證明文件（營利事業登記證或其他政府機關頒發之證明文件）。
３、填具「臺北捷運公司場地出借申請書」(附件二），並蓋大小章。
４、詳細企劃書（含展出作品之名單、展出計劃、作品掛設及配置方式等）。
５、全部展出作品之照片或圖片（請黏貼或列印於Ａ４紙張上），及展覽介紹海報Ａ４樣張。
（四）申請方式：
１、請於臺北市民ｅ點通網站http://www.e-services.taipei.gov.tw/捷運公司項下「線上申辦」登錄相關資料，於接獲通知日起五日內補正申請文件送達本公司管理單位。
２、郵寄或親送申請文件至本公司企劃部：
電話：二五三六三○○一轉八一七一。
傳真：二五一一四八九三。
公司地址：臺北市中山北路二段四十八巷七號六樓。
３、申請文件若不詳實或有欠缺者，申請人應於接獲通知日起算五日內（工作天）至本公司補正，凡逾期者視同放棄申請借用，且不得以任何理由要求補辦。
六、收費及退費規定：
（一）繳費方式：
１、以現金、銀行即期支票（銀行即期支票須為正本，開具抬頭為臺北大眾捷運股份有限公司，並加註禁止背書轉讓字樣）至本公司財務部出納課繳納。
２、電匯至本公司於台北銀行營業部之二○○三三一七五五○九 - 四帳戶，戶名為臺北大眾捷運股份有限公司，並將繳款收據傳真至本公司管理單位。
３、申請單位應於本公司通知同意出借藝文廊場地翌日起五日內（工作天），繳納保證金新台幣壹萬元整及管理費，與本公司之藝文廊借用合約，始依藝文廊出借須知之內容成立；若未於五日內繳清相關費用，視同放棄藝文廊借用之申請，本公司有權將該檔期轉借予其他單位。
（二）退費規定：
１、本公司該藝文廊所屬場站之站務人員得依「臺北捷運公司場地出借申請書」現場檢視無誤後，申請人始進場佈置使用場地。
２、申請人於展覽結束後逕洽本公司管理單位依「廣場、藝文廊作業流程表」（如附件三）辦理退還保證金事宜。
３、展覽結束後，申請人應將展品及張貼物於當日本公司結束營運前或依據申請核准結束時間內拆除運回，且將場地清潔回復原狀交予本公司，並經該藝文廊所屬場站之站務人員現場勘查檢核無誤，方得無息退還保證金。如未將場地清潔回復原狀，所繳保證金及其孳息不予發還。
４、展覽所需之掛勾；除申請人可自備外，亦可向本公司企劃部借用，並於展覽結束後全數歸還予本公司，如遺失或損壞者，申請人須負賠償責任。
５、借用之場地如有損毀，申請人除應負賠償修護原狀責任外，若因而影響到翌日之後繼申請人之展覽進行，則有關該後繼申請人之任何損失，其法律責任概由申請人負責。如未於二週內回復原狀，本公司得進行修復，所須費用由保證金扣除，不足時由本公司依法追償之。
七、取消或變更檔期：
（一）如遇天災或不可抗拒之特殊事故；或因捷運系統發生特殊事故，致使藝文廊無法使用，本公司得立即通知申請人研商改期，如無法改期，本公司除無息退還保證金及已繳之費用外，申請人不得異議及要求賠償責任。
（二）於核准後，申請人因故不能如期展出者，應於核准展出日前三十日（日曆天）書面通知本公司，依照作業流程辦理取消使用，本公司方無息退還保證金及管理費。
（三）若無法如期使用而有變更檔期之必要時，亦應於原檔期前三十日，以書面通知本公司協商另行安排檔期，變更檔期以一次為限。
八、展覽期間規定：
（一）場地佈＼拆展、包裝、運送及保險由申請人自行負責，並配合本公司開放時間或依據申請核准之佈＼拆展時間辦理。展出作品之陳列不得影響行人之動線，請依序吊掛於牆面上，每幅作品間應留出適當之間隔（依作品之大小），嚴禁將作品上下擺放。
（二）申請人應視所申請之場地大小，提出適當數量之展覽作品，如需於展覽期間更換作品，須於展覽前告知並於企劃書內提出，並經本公司同意後方可更換。如未事先聲明者，於第一次進場佈置完成後，於展出期間即不得更換展覽作品。
（三）申請人除展覽作品外，不得於現場設置任何物品（包含簽名處（桌）、服務台、花籃等），但為顧及展出作品之安全，需於展覽現場設置簽名處（桌）、服務台派員留守，其設置位置僅限於申請藝文廊區域範圍內且不得影響行人動線，亦不得於現場喧嘩、飲食、玩牌或睡覺等情事，違反者本公司有權要求立即撤離服務台及人員，申請人不得異議。
（四）申請人需於展覽期間辦理任何儀式（開幕剪綵、記者會等），皆應事先於企劃書內提出，並提具詳細場地佈置圖、活動流程及邀請來賓等資料，其位置僅限於申請藝文廊區域範圍內且不得影響行人動線，並經本公司同意後方可舉辦。
九、罰則：
（一）申請人有下列情事之一者，本公司得不經催告立即終止契約及展覽，且已展出之作品本公司得逕為處理，所繳之費用（含管理費、保證金及其孳息）概不退還，並停止本申請權一年：
１、未經本公司書面同意，擅將本公司列為展覽活動之主、協辦或贊助單位或邀請單位者。
２、未經本公司同意，擅自於車站或展場內張貼海報及放置或散發各類宣傳物品者。
３、未經本公司同意，自行接用車站內電力或自行設置電力設備者。
４、展出作品內容或取材侵犯第三人智慧財產權及其他權利等情事。
５、藝文廊借用期間，申請人違反前第四點第一項情事之一者。
６、將場地轉借（租）或以其他任何方式提供予第三人使用，或混合其他未提出申請之作品（者）一同展出者。
７、因故不能如期展出且未於前三十日書面通知本公司者。
８、於展覽期間，自行更換展覽作品，與原申請內容不符者。
９、展出現場進行包含義賣及廣告宣傳商品等，任何商業行為之情事者。
（二）申請人應於本公司許可日期內展出，如有提前進場或逾期仍未將作品拆除運回之情事，本公司將視為廢棄物處理（所生費用由申請人負擔），並將依規定加收違約日數之管理費，該款項得自保證金內扣抵，不足之數本公司另行追償之。
（三）申請人之場地佈置及作品掛設之方式，應遵守送審核同意之內容，不得任意變更；如有與原送審資料不符或妨礙行人動線等，一經發現違反規定，每次應給付懲罰性違約金新台幣一仟元，該款項得自保證金內扣抵之，不足之數本公司另行追償之。
（四）佈置場地時，除展出作品之陳列不得影響行人動線外，且嚴禁使用鐵釘、螺絲、雙面膠、泡綿膠、膠水等足以破壞牆面或於牆面上留下殘留物之物品，一經發現違反規定，每次應給付懲罰性違約金新台幣一仟元，該款項得自保證金內扣抵之，不足之數本公司另行追償之。
（五）申請人應遵守本須知及其他相關法令之規定，並按照本公司相關管理人員指導使用場地，若違反本須知內各條款之規定，經本公司通知限期改善而未改善完成者，本公司得立即終止契約及展覽，並所繳保證金及其孳息不予發還。
十、附則：
（一）本須知視為契約之一部份效力與契約同，申請人應詳加閱讀瞭解自身權益，並嚴格遵守。
（二）相關本須知作業流程表（如附件三）。
（三）申請人申訴電話：二五三六三ＯＯ一轉八五九一～八五九七。
十一、本須知自總經理核定日起生效。
在寫企劃書的過程中必須很仔細的讀「申請須知」上的條文，避免因不符規定被退件槓龜。但是看到其中某些規則還是不免覺得好笑又無力。
比方第四條「展出內容規定」之第一項：凡有下列情形之一者，本公司得拒絕藝文廊出借之申請：
１、形體裸露、意識猥褻、藝術水準低落或違反公序良俗及法令規定之情形者。
６、申請人之作品本公司認為有損本公司形象者。
裸露？好吧，公共空間嘛。意識猥褻？又來了。大法官針對此法條開倒車般的釋憲言猶在耳。藝術水準低落及違反公序良俗就不去斤斤計較了，但是這「申請人之作品本公司認為有損本公司形象者」可能會是什麼呢？實在太太太模糊了。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
下文【轉自】http://www.trtc.com.tw/c/apply.asp?catid=%E6%B0%91%E7%9C%BE%E7%94%B3%E8%BE%A6%E6%A5%AD%E5%8B%99&small=%E8%87%BA%E5%8C%97%E6%8D%B7%E9%81%8B%E5%85%AC%E5%8F%B8%E8%97%9D%E6%96%87%E5%BB%8A%E5%87%BA%E5%80%9F%E7%94%B3%E8%AB%8B
臺北捷運公司藝文廊出借須知
民國93年7月22日修正
一、目的：
臺北捷運公司（以下簡稱本公司）為規範提供公眾借用捷運沿線藝文廊空間，特訂定本須知。
二、出借使用時間：
（一）展出時間配合本公司之營運時間（原則上為每日上午六時起至晚上十二時止），全年對外開放。
（二）每次申請借用藝文廊以不超過一個月為原則；申請借用日期即包含進場佈置及退場拆卸時間。逾越日期者依本須知第十一點第二項加收管理費。
三、藝文廊位置及費用：
中山站、中正紀念堂站、忠孝復興站(平面圖及360度環景實境)（詳細位置及管理費詳如管理費價目表），本公司得依實際狀況及需要調整資料。
四、展出內容規定：
（一）凡有下列情形之一者，本公司得拒絕藝文廊出借之申請：
１、形體裸露、意識猥褻、藝術水準低落或違反公序良俗及法令規定之情形者。
２、展出作品涉及政治性、商業性或侵害著作權等智慧財產權者。
３、展出作品數量無法合理放置達藝文廊整體長度之三分之二者。
４、曾申請藝文廊借用有違約紀錄，且仍於停權期間者。
５、展出作品裝置簡陋或無裱框者。
６、申請人之作品本公司認為有損本公司形象者。
（二）本公司對使用單位提出之場地申請有審核權，凡申請展覽內容不符本須知規定者，不予出借場地。
（三）凡申請人送件至本公司後，無論核准與否，概不退件。
（四）本公司場地僅供申請人展出作品，對展出作品不負任何保管及安全責任。
（五）本公司如活動上之需要或其他原因須使用藝文廊場地時，無論是否與原定單位有檔期上之衝突，均有權優先使用，原申請人願意無條件接受本公司之安排，不得異議。
（六）申請人應保證其展出作品內容或取材無侵犯第三人智慧財產權及其他權利等情事，如有違反前述情況，由申請人負責，與本公司無任何關係。
（七）政府所屬各機關及各級學校申請藝文廊借用時，本公司仍需收取保證金、管理費，惟如係本公司主、協辦之活動或所邀約之展覽，得免繳保證金、管理費及免填申請文件。
五、申請程序及方式：
（一）申請資格：凡社區、社團、學校、公民營機關（構）、團體及個人皆可申請展出。
（二）檔期預約：
１、預約文件：請檢附企劃書或草案（內容包含展出計劃、日期、作品數量及大小、佈置方式等）由展出作品中選取十張照片或圖片，黏貼或列印於A4紙上；預約結果本公司將以電話通知。
２、取消預約：本公司同意申請人之檔期預約後，申請人未能如期展出者，應於該展覽活動日前三十日（日曆天）通知本公司，如無正當理由且未於上述日期內通知本公司者，自原定該展覽活動結束日起算，停止申請人借用本公司藝文廊申請權（以下簡稱本申請權）一年。
（三）申請文件：本公司同意申請人之檔期預約後，應於申請展出日起算前三十日至九十日內（日曆天）提送申請文件；若為個人申請，則免備１、２款文件。
１、委託書（如附件一)。
２、機關證明文件（營利事業登記證或其他政府機關頒發之證明文件）。
３、填具「臺北捷運公司場地出借申請書」(附件二），並蓋大小章。
４、詳細企劃書（含展出作品之名單、展出計劃、作品掛設及配置方式等）。
５、全部展出作品之照片或圖片（請黏貼或列印於Ａ４紙張上），及展覽介紹海報Ａ４樣張。
（四）申請方式：
１、請於臺北市民ｅ點通網站http://www.e-services.taipei.gov.tw/捷運公司項下「線上申辦」登錄相關資料，於接獲通知日起五日內補正申請文件送達本公司管理單位。
２、郵寄或親送申請文件至本公司企劃部：
電話：二五三六三○○一轉八一七一。
傳真：二五一一四八九三。
公司地址：臺北市中山北路二段四十八巷七號六樓。
３、申請文件若不詳實或有欠缺者，申請人應於接獲通知日起算五日內（工作天）至本公司補正，凡逾期者視同放棄申請借用，且不得以任何理由要求補辦。
六、收費及退費規定：
（一）繳費方式：
１、以現金、銀行即期支票（銀行即期支票須為正本，開具抬頭為臺北大眾捷運股份有限公司，並加註禁止背書轉讓字樣）至本公司財務部出納課繳納。
２、電匯至本公司於台北銀行營業部之二○○三三一七五五○九 - 四帳戶，戶名為臺北大眾捷運股份有限公司，並將繳款收據傳真至本公司管理單位。
３、申請單位應於本公司通知同意出借藝文廊場地翌日起五日內（工作天），繳納保證金新台幣壹萬元整及管理費，與本公司之藝文廊借用合約，始依藝文廊出借須知之內容成立；若未於五日內繳清相關費用，視同放棄藝文廊借用之申請，本公司有權將該檔期轉借予其他單位。
（二）退費規定：
１、本公司該藝文廊所屬場站之站務人員得依「臺北捷運公司場地出借申請書」現場檢視無誤後，申請人始進場佈置使用場地。
２、申請人於展覽結束後逕洽本公司管理單位依「廣場、藝文廊作業流程表」（如附件三）辦理退還保證金事宜。
３、展覽結束後，申請人應將展品及張貼物於當日本公司結束營運前或依據申請核准結束時間內拆除運回，且將場地清潔回復原狀交予本公司，並經該藝文廊所屬場站之站務人員現場勘查檢核無誤，方得無息退還保證金。如未將場地清潔回復原狀，所繳保證金及其孳息不予發還。
４、展覽所需之掛勾；除申請人可自備外，亦可向本公司企劃部借用，並於展覽結束後全數歸還予本公司，如遺失或損壞者，申請人須負賠償責任。
５、借用之場地如有損毀，申請人除應負賠償修護原狀責任外，若因而影響到翌日之後繼申請人之展覽進行，則有關該後繼申請人之任何損失，其法律責任概由申請人負責。如未於二週內回復原狀，本公司得進行修復，所須費用由保證金扣除，不足時由本公司依法追償之。
七、取消或變更檔期：
（一）如遇天災或不可抗拒之特殊事故；或因捷運系統發生特殊事故，致使藝文廊無法使用，本公司得立即通知申請人研商改期，如無法改期，本公司除無息退還保證金及已繳之費用外，申請人不得異議及要求賠償責任。
（二）於核准後，申請人因故不能如期展出者，應於核准展出日前三十日（日曆天）書面通知本公司，依照作業流程辦理取消使用，本公司方無息退還保證金及管理費。
（三）若無法如期使用而有變更檔期之必要時，亦應於原檔期前三十日，以書面通知本公司協商另行安排檔期，變更檔期以一次為限。
八、展覽期間規定：
（一）場地佈＼拆展、包裝、運送及保險由申請人自行負責，並配合本公司開放時間或依據申請核准之佈＼拆展時間辦理。展出作品之陳列不得影響行人之動線，請依序吊掛於牆面上，每幅作品間應留出適當之間隔（依作品之大小），嚴禁將作品上下擺放。
（二）申請人應視所申請之場地大小，提出適當數量之展覽作品，如需於展覽期間更換作品，須於展覽前告知並於企劃書內提出，並經本公司同意後方可更換。如未事先聲明者，於第一次進場佈置完成後，於展出期間即不得更換展覽作品。
（三）申請人除展覽作品外，不得於現場設置任何物品（包含簽名處（桌）、服務台、花籃等），但為顧及展出作品之安全，需於展覽現場設置簽名處（桌）、服務台派員留守，其設置位置僅限於申請藝文廊區域範圍內且不得影響行人動線，亦不得於現場喧嘩、飲食、玩牌或睡覺等情事，違反者本公司有權要求立即撤離服務台及人員，申請人不得異議。
（四）申請人需於展覽期間辦理任何儀式（開幕剪綵、記者會等），皆應事先於企劃書內提出，並提具詳細場地佈置圖、活動流程及邀請來賓等資料，其位置僅限於申請藝文廊區域範圍內且不得影響行人動線，並經本公司同意後方可舉辦。
九、罰則：
（一）申請人有下列情事之一者，本公司得不經催告立即終止契約及展覽，且已展出之作品本公司得逕為處理，所繳之費用（含管理費、保證金及其孳息）概不退還，並停止本申請權一年：
１、未經本公司書面同意，擅將本公司列為展覽活動之主、協辦或贊助單位或邀請單位者。
２、未經本公司同意，擅自於車站或展場內張貼海報及放置或散發各類宣傳物品者。
３、未經本公司同意，自行接用車站內電力或自行設置電力設備者。
４、展出作品內容或取材侵犯第三人智慧財產權及其他權利等情事。
５、藝文廊借用期間，申請人違反前第四點第一項情事之一者。
６、將場地轉借（租）或以其他任何方式提供予第三人使用，或混合其他未提出申請之作品（者）一同展出者。
７、因故不能如期展出且未於前三十日書面通知本公司者。
８、於展覽期間，自行更換展覽作品，與原申請內容不符者。
９、展出現場進行包含義賣及廣告宣傳商品等，任何商業行為之情事者。
（二）申請人應於本公司許可日期內展出，如有提前進場或逾期仍未將作品拆除運回之情事，本公司將視為廢棄物處理（所生費用由申請人負擔），並將依規定加收違約日數之管理費，該款項得自保證金內扣抵，不足之數本公司另行追償之。
（三）申請人之場地佈置及作品掛設之方式，應遵守送審核同意之內容，不得任意變更；如有與原送審資料不符或妨礙行人動線等，一經發現違反規定，每次應給付懲罰性違約金新台幣一仟元，該款項得自保證金內扣抵之，不足之數本公司另行追償之。
（四）佈置場地時，除展出作品之陳列不得影響行人動線外，且嚴禁使用鐵釘、螺絲、雙面膠、泡綿膠、膠水等足以破壞牆面或於牆面上留下殘留物之物品，一經發現違反規定，每次應給付懲罰性違約金新台幣一仟元，該款項得自保證金內扣抵之，不足之數本公司另行追償之。
（五）申請人應遵守本須知及其他相關法令之規定，並按照本公司相關管理人員指導使用場地，若違反本須知內各條款之規定，經本公司通知限期改善而未改善完成者，本公司得立即終止契約及展覽，並所繳保證金及其孳息不予發還。
十、附則：
（一）本須知視為契約之一部份效力與契約同，申請人應詳加閱讀瞭解自身權益，並嚴格遵守。
（二）相關本須知作業流程表（如附件三）。
（三）申請人申訴電話：二五三六三ＯＯ一轉八五九一～八五九七。
十一、本須知自總經理核定日起生效。
November 4, 2006
【轉】臺北捷運系統拍攝須知
【轉自】http://www.trtc.com.tw/c/apply.asp?catid=%E6%B0%91%E7%9C%BE%E7%94%B3%E8%BE%A6%E6%A5%AD%E5%8B%99&small=%E8%87%BA%E5%8C%97%E6%8D%B7%E9%81%8B%E7%B3%BB%E7%B5%B1%E6%8B%8D%E6%94%9D%E7%94%B3%E8%AB%8B
臺北捷運系統拍攝須知
民國95年1月26日修正
一、目的：
臺北捷運公司（以下簡稱本公司）為協助及規範臺北捷運系統（以下簡稱本系統）內拍攝行為，維護系統正常運作並兼顧旅客權益，特訂定本須知。
二、適用範圍：
（一） 本須知所稱拍攝者，係指以各式攝影器材於本系統內從事攝（錄）影之行為。從事拍攝行為應依規定辦理申請手續，經本公司審核通過後方得為之。
（二） 一般旅客持家用攝影器材從事一般紀念性取景或其他經本公司許可之行為者，得不受本須知第三點、第五點、第六點、第八點及第九點規定限制。
三、開放申請範圍：
（一） 開放時間：限非假日上午10時至下午4時，每日以申請4小時為限。
（二） 開放人數：凡拍攝期間所有演員、工作人員或其他同行人員均統稱為「劇組人員」，人數中運量系統限5人、高運量系統限15人，捷運地下街及轉乘停車場限20人，並應比照旅客自行購票或支付逾站逾時等相關費用。
（三） 開放區域：
１. 以本系統已開放營運之車站、地下街、轉乘停車場及北投機廠之公共區域為原則。但不包含臺北車站及忠孝復興站等重要轉乘車站。
２. 列車部分，中運量系統開放所有提供載客之營運車廂；高運量系統以靠近司機員之第一節車廂為限。
３. 婚紗拍攝僅限下列廠、站之公共區域，且上、下樓層應全程搭乘電梯：
（１）捷運北投機廠。
（２）北投站第四月台與一樓大廳層。
（３）新北投支線列車與新北投站。
（４）小碧潭支線列車與小碧潭站。
（四） 相同時段與區域，僅受理一組拍攝申請，並以先完成送件者優先。
四、規定及限制：
（一） 有下列情形之一者，本公司得拒絕拍攝：
１. 曾受本公司停止申請拍攝權利處分者。
２. 損及本公司形象或有誤導民眾之虞者。
３. 利用鬼魅、裸露裝扮、戲偶等特殊造型，或安排公眾表演、商業宣傳活動或記者會等方式，致影響系統營運者。
４. 從事暴力、爆破、製煙或縱火等，危及營運安全之行為者。
５. 其他有違公序良俗、法令規定、本須知或本公司其他規範者。
（二） 拍攝應遵守下列事項：
１. 限單機作業，反光板或遮光板應裁切於60公分以內，並由專人手持。
２. 器材應自備蓄電設備，嚴禁使用發電機，並不得接用或串接本系統相關設備。
３. 對講機、麥克風等無線設備，不得干擾或影響本系統設備正常運轉。
４. 禁止使用燈光腳架、軌道、懸臂、鷹架、旗板、懸掛布幔等器材或道具，或張貼海報、豎立隔板等行為，有妨礙系統營運之虞者。
５. 器材應集中擺置整齊，纜線使用長度不得超過2公尺，且應以膠帶或壓板固定於地面；結束後應負責使用場地之清理及復原，且上、下樓層應全程使用電梯或樓梯，不得使用電扶梯。
６. 所有劇組人員、器材應同時進出，不得頂替或臨時替換，並應配合本公司門禁管制規定。
７. 如涉及捷運地下街店舖、車站販賣店或其他旅客相關權益時（如肖像權），應先自行徵得其同意。
８. 月台拍攝應自行注意列車進出狀況及負責警戒作業。
（三） 劇組人員不得有下列行為：
１. 妨礙旅客通行或逃生動線。
２. 於電扶梯上追逐、跑跳、逆向搭乘或滯留於乘場淨空區，或攝影者搭乘電扶梯移動拍攝。
３. 妨礙或阻止旅客使用本系統之公共空間或設備。
４. 將燈光直接投射司機員或跨越月台黃色警戒線等影響營運安全之行為。
５. 擅闖管制區或滯留於非供營運之車廂。
６. 任意操控系統設備或妨礙系統設備正常運作。
７. 拒絕本公司人員監督、指揮或妨礙其執行勤務。
８. 違反其他法令規定或本公司其他規範。
（四） 合成畫面及完成作品，亦不得違反前項各款規定。
五、申請程序及方式：
（一） 申請資格：
１. 凡各企業、公司或機關團體，經政府登記有案或領有相關證明者，均得提出申請，亦得出具委託書委託他人代辦。
２. 在學學生因課業需要，經校方出具證明者，得以學生個人名義提出申請。
（二） 申請文件：
１. 填具「臺北捷運公司拍攝申請表」，並加蓋公司或機關及負責人印鑑。
２. 申請單位營利事業登記證或其他政府機關核發之證明文件影本，以學生名義申請者則應檢附在學學生證明。
３. 劇組人員名冊。
４. 運鏡說明表。
５. 拍攝企劃書及劇本或腳本。
６. 其它必要之合成畫面設計稿或證明文件。
（三） 申請方式：
１. 網路申請：具政府工商憑證或機關憑證者，得於臺北市民e點通網站http://www.e-services.gov.tw/驗證憑證後登錄相關資料，並於翌日內補正相關申請文件，完成申請手續。
２. 郵寄或親送申請文件至本公司管理單位
地址：臺北市中山區中山北路2段48巷7號2樓
（四） 送件時間：
１. 應於拍攝日（不含）7日前，備妥申請文件送達本公司管理單位，以其收件戳記時間為憑，始正式受理。
２. 文件不符或缺件者，得於送件日起翌日內至本公司補正，逾期視同放棄申請，所繳文件概不退件。
（五） 申請手續應由實際拍攝或製作單位辦理，不得冒名或擅自頂替，或將核准權利轉讓第三者。
（六） 申請前應先行購票前往現場勘景，並詳閱與遵守本須知，劇組人員亦應共同瞭解與遵守。
六、核准與查核：
（一） 本公司得視業務需要與拍攝內容保留准駁之決定，並得視狀況要求於作品加註說明，無論核准與否概不退件，亦無須負擔任何賠償責任。
（二） 經本公司審查核准拍攝之時段、區域、劇組人員、攜帶器材及劇情等內容，另出具「臺北捷運公司拍攝許可證」（以下簡稱拍攝許可證）及「臺北捷運公司拍攝查核表」（以下簡稱拍攝查核表），憑證進場拍攝。
（三） 劇組人員進入本系統時，應於指定地點主動出示「拍攝許可證」及個人身分證件交由本公司現場管理人員（如站長）查核，經本公司查核通過者方得進場拍攝，更換場地時亦同；拍攝結束離開本系統前，亦應於指定地點由本公司現場管理人員查核後，繳回拍攝許可證及拍攝查核表。
（四） 現場拍攝內容不得逾越拍攝許可證核准範圍，除現場人員查核外，本公司將不定時、不定點指派稽查人員抽查，並將查核時間與結果記錄於「拍攝查核表」。
七、罰則：
（一） 未依本須知第三點、第六點或第八點各項規定，辦理或完成相關手續者，本公司得停止申請拍攝權利1年。
（二） 違反本須知第四點第（二）、（三）、（四）項規定者，本公司得停止申請拍攝權利2年。
（三） 有下列情形之一者，本公司得停止申請拍攝權利3年：
１. 未依本須知規定提出拍攝申請者。
２. 違反前項規定，經勸阻後仍不改善者。
３. 違反大眾捷運法第五十條及第五十條之一等規定者。
４. 造成列車延誤、人員傷亡或本系統設備損壞者。
（四） 違反第（一）項至第（三）項規定者，本公司得不經催告採取下列措施：
１. 立即終止拍攝許可，同時收回並註銷拍攝許可證。
２. 強制劇組人員、器材撤離本系統，未乘車區間之票價不予退還。
３. 拒絕相關違規畫面、作品播出或發行。
４. 公佈相關違規資訊。
八、其他：
（一） 申請內容如有異動或取消，得於本公司審查完成前以書面提出變更申請，逾期一律重新申請。因故臨時取消者，應於原定拍攝日前先行電話通知本公司，並至遲於原定拍攝日翌日起7日內，以書面辦理結案手續。
（二） 成品或作品應於拍攝日起2個月內以VHS錄影帶或光碟片送交本公司備查，平面作品得以刊載成品提送，如因故無法如期送交時，應以書面提出展延申請。
九、附則
（一） 如因本系統營運需要，本公司得逕行終止相關拍攝活動，無須負擔任何賠償責任。
（二） 如造成本公司系統設備、器材毀損或第三人生命、身體或財物損失，對本公司所受直接或間接損害（包括但不限於財產或非財產之損害、營業利益之損失、營業中斷、營業資訊之損失或其他金錢損失），皆須負損害賠償及相關法律責任。
（三） 凡政府政令宣導、公益廣告或與本公司合作有特殊需求者，得檢附相關證明或企劃書，提出專案申請。
（四） 如不服本公司之處分者，得於處分之日翌日起1個月內檢附相關證明文件，以書面提出異議，逾期概不受理。
十、本須知自總經理核定日起生效。
臺北捷運系統拍攝須知
民國95年1月26日修正
一、目的：
臺北捷運公司（以下簡稱本公司）為協助及規範臺北捷運系統（以下簡稱本系統）內拍攝行為，維護系統正常運作並兼顧旅客權益，特訂定本須知。
二、適用範圍：
（一） 本須知所稱拍攝者，係指以各式攝影器材於本系統內從事攝（錄）影之行為。從事拍攝行為應依規定辦理申請手續，經本公司審核通過後方得為之。
（二） 一般旅客持家用攝影器材從事一般紀念性取景或其他經本公司許可之行為者，得不受本須知第三點、第五點、第六點、第八點及第九點規定限制。
三、開放申請範圍：
（一） 開放時間：限非假日上午10時至下午4時，每日以申請4小時為限。
（二） 開放人數：凡拍攝期間所有演員、工作人員或其他同行人員均統稱為「劇組人員」，人數中運量系統限5人、高運量系統限15人，捷運地下街及轉乘停車場限20人，並應比照旅客自行購票或支付逾站逾時等相關費用。
（三） 開放區域：
１. 以本系統已開放營運之車站、地下街、轉乘停車場及北投機廠之公共區域為原則。但不包含臺北車站及忠孝復興站等重要轉乘車站。
２. 列車部分，中運量系統開放所有提供載客之營運車廂；高運量系統以靠近司機員之第一節車廂為限。
３. 婚紗拍攝僅限下列廠、站之公共區域，且上、下樓層應全程搭乘電梯：
（１）捷運北投機廠。
（２）北投站第四月台與一樓大廳層。
（３）新北投支線列車與新北投站。
（４）小碧潭支線列車與小碧潭站。
（四） 相同時段與區域，僅受理一組拍攝申請，並以先完成送件者優先。
四、規定及限制：
（一） 有下列情形之一者，本公司得拒絕拍攝：
１. 曾受本公司停止申請拍攝權利處分者。
２. 損及本公司形象或有誤導民眾之虞者。
３. 利用鬼魅、裸露裝扮、戲偶等特殊造型，或安排公眾表演、商業宣傳活動或記者會等方式，致影響系統營運者。
４. 從事暴力、爆破、製煙或縱火等，危及營運安全之行為者。
５. 其他有違公序良俗、法令規定、本須知或本公司其他規範者。
（二） 拍攝應遵守下列事項：
１. 限單機作業，反光板或遮光板應裁切於60公分以內，並由專人手持。
２. 器材應自備蓄電設備，嚴禁使用發電機，並不得接用或串接本系統相關設備。
３. 對講機、麥克風等無線設備，不得干擾或影響本系統設備正常運轉。
４. 禁止使用燈光腳架、軌道、懸臂、鷹架、旗板、懸掛布幔等器材或道具，或張貼海報、豎立隔板等行為，有妨礙系統營運之虞者。
５. 器材應集中擺置整齊，纜線使用長度不得超過2公尺，且應以膠帶或壓板固定於地面；結束後應負責使用場地之清理及復原，且上、下樓層應全程使用電梯或樓梯，不得使用電扶梯。
６. 所有劇組人員、器材應同時進出，不得頂替或臨時替換，並應配合本公司門禁管制規定。
７. 如涉及捷運地下街店舖、車站販賣店或其他旅客相關權益時（如肖像權），應先自行徵得其同意。
８. 月台拍攝應自行注意列車進出狀況及負責警戒作業。
（三） 劇組人員不得有下列行為：
１. 妨礙旅客通行或逃生動線。
２. 於電扶梯上追逐、跑跳、逆向搭乘或滯留於乘場淨空區，或攝影者搭乘電扶梯移動拍攝。
３. 妨礙或阻止旅客使用本系統之公共空間或設備。
４. 將燈光直接投射司機員或跨越月台黃色警戒線等影響營運安全之行為。
５. 擅闖管制區或滯留於非供營運之車廂。
６. 任意操控系統設備或妨礙系統設備正常運作。
７. 拒絕本公司人員監督、指揮或妨礙其執行勤務。
８. 違反其他法令規定或本公司其他規範。
（四） 合成畫面及完成作品，亦不得違反前項各款規定。
五、申請程序及方式：
（一） 申請資格：
１. 凡各企業、公司或機關團體，經政府登記有案或領有相關證明者，均得提出申請，亦得出具委託書委託他人代辦。
２. 在學學生因課業需要，經校方出具證明者，得以學生個人名義提出申請。
（二） 申請文件：
１. 填具「臺北捷運公司拍攝申請表」，並加蓋公司或機關及負責人印鑑。
２. 申請單位營利事業登記證或其他政府機關核發之證明文件影本，以學生名義申請者則應檢附在學學生證明。
３. 劇組人員名冊。
４. 運鏡說明表。
５. 拍攝企劃書及劇本或腳本。
６. 其它必要之合成畫面設計稿或證明文件。
（三） 申請方式：
１. 網路申請：具政府工商憑證或機關憑證者，得於臺北市民e點通網站http://www.e-services.gov.tw/驗證憑證後登錄相關資料，並於翌日內補正相關申請文件，完成申請手續。
２. 郵寄或親送申請文件至本公司管理單位
地址：臺北市中山區中山北路2段48巷7號2樓
（四） 送件時間：
１. 應於拍攝日（不含）7日前，備妥申請文件送達本公司管理單位，以其收件戳記時間為憑，始正式受理。
２. 文件不符或缺件者，得於送件日起翌日內至本公司補正，逾期視同放棄申請，所繳文件概不退件。
（五） 申請手續應由實際拍攝或製作單位辦理，不得冒名或擅自頂替，或將核准權利轉讓第三者。
（六） 申請前應先行購票前往現場勘景，並詳閱與遵守本須知，劇組人員亦應共同瞭解與遵守。
六、核准與查核：
（一） 本公司得視業務需要與拍攝內容保留准駁之決定，並得視狀況要求於作品加註說明，無論核准與否概不退件，亦無須負擔任何賠償責任。
（二） 經本公司審查核准拍攝之時段、區域、劇組人員、攜帶器材及劇情等內容，另出具「臺北捷運公司拍攝許可證」（以下簡稱拍攝許可證）及「臺北捷運公司拍攝查核表」（以下簡稱拍攝查核表），憑證進場拍攝。
（三） 劇組人員進入本系統時，應於指定地點主動出示「拍攝許可證」及個人身分證件交由本公司現場管理人員（如站長）查核，經本公司查核通過者方得進場拍攝，更換場地時亦同；拍攝結束離開本系統前，亦應於指定地點由本公司現場管理人員查核後，繳回拍攝許可證及拍攝查核表。
（四） 現場拍攝內容不得逾越拍攝許可證核准範圍，除現場人員查核外，本公司將不定時、不定點指派稽查人員抽查，並將查核時間與結果記錄於「拍攝查核表」。
七、罰則：
（一） 未依本須知第三點、第六點或第八點各項規定，辦理或完成相關手續者，本公司得停止申請拍攝權利1年。
（二） 違反本須知第四點第（二）、（三）、（四）項規定者，本公司得停止申請拍攝權利2年。
（三） 有下列情形之一者，本公司得停止申請拍攝權利3年：
１. 未依本須知規定提出拍攝申請者。
２. 違反前項規定，經勸阻後仍不改善者。
３. 違反大眾捷運法第五十條及第五十條之一等規定者。
４. 造成列車延誤、人員傷亡或本系統設備損壞者。
（四） 違反第（一）項至第（三）項規定者，本公司得不經催告採取下列措施：
１. 立即終止拍攝許可，同時收回並註銷拍攝許可證。
２. 強制劇組人員、器材撤離本系統，未乘車區間之票價不予退還。
３. 拒絕相關違規畫面、作品播出或發行。
４. 公佈相關違規資訊。
八、其他：
（一） 申請內容如有異動或取消，得於本公司審查完成前以書面提出變更申請，逾期一律重新申請。因故臨時取消者，應於原定拍攝日前先行電話通知本公司，並至遲於原定拍攝日翌日起7日內，以書面辦理結案手續。
（二） 成品或作品應於拍攝日起2個月內以VHS錄影帶或光碟片送交本公司備查，平面作品得以刊載成品提送，如因故無法如期送交時，應以書面提出展延申請。
九、附則
（一） 如因本系統營運需要，本公司得逕行終止相關拍攝活動，無須負擔任何賠償責任。
（二） 如造成本公司系統設備、器材毀損或第三人生命、身體或財物損失，對本公司所受直接或間接損害（包括但不限於財產或非財產之損害、營業利益之損失、營業中斷、營業資訊之損失或其他金錢損失），皆須負損害賠償及相關法律責任。
（三） 凡政府政令宣導、公益廣告或與本公司合作有特殊需求者，得檢附相關證明或企劃書，提出專案申請。
（四） 如不服本公司之處分者，得於處分之日翌日起1個月內檢附相關證明文件，以書面提出異議，逾期概不受理。
十、本須知自總經理核定日起生效。
October 30, 2006
【轉】泳裝人像攝影一般規範
我還真是孤陋寡聞，竟然不知道禁止攜帶使用 B+W093 / Hoya R72 ... 等深色濾鏡，已經成為「人像攝影一般規範」。
據說，某些相機配備特殊紅外線夜視裝置。只要配上某些濾鏡就可以有「透視」效果，因此被禁用於人像攝影或泳裝攝影等活動。我曾使用過黑白紅外線底片＋紅色濾色鏡的標準組合。當時並沒有發現有任何「透視」現象，因此很難想像。不過ＣＣＤ的紅外線裝置是如何運作的我就不知了。
這個，需要作點深入專題研究
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
《泳裝人像攝影一般規範》
【轉自】http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=1830
（部分省略）
【拍攝現場】
請勿遲到，並隨身攜帶繳費證明身份證明；現場請遵從主辦人員調度。
模特兒 POSE 由現場幹部指導負責，拍攝者若有額外拍攝構思，可和現場活動幹部商量，模特兒之指導限口頭說明，請謹守勿碰觸模特兒肢體的原則。
除主辦單位之外，請勿攜帶 DV/MV/D8/Hi8...等攝錄影機。
為免模特兒疑慮，請勿攜帶 B+W093 / Hoya R72 ... 濾鏡。
除指定拍攝模特兒外，勿拍攝現場工作人員或是當次實習的模特兒。
【作品發表】
著作權為拍攝者所有，但不得使用於商業出版、發行用途( 例如圖書、專刊、月曆、名信片...等 )，主辦單位仍保有模特兒肖像權利；與設計相關合作單位( 如彩粧、服裝、建築設計 )之拍攝活動，主辦單位仍保有視覺設計之著作權利，模特兒得同意主辦單位有權發表於本站書刊及教學文章中使用。
可發表於攝影類網站之作品發表區，和網友進行技術交流，但不得發表於違反社會風俗之貼圖網站。
拍攝者為著作權擁有者，當相片遭轉貼，或導因於相片之發表致【模特兒 / 主辦單位】權益、形象受損，拍攝者同意以善意立場，盡力保護、協助站方保障模特兒。
作品相關- 專欄文章之運用，僅限於 DCView 網站。
作品相關- 模特兒特輯報導，僅限於 DCView 網站。
據說，某些相機配備特殊紅外線夜視裝置。只要配上某些濾鏡就可以有「透視」效果，因此被禁用於人像攝影或泳裝攝影等活動。我曾使用過黑白紅外線底片＋紅色濾色鏡的標準組合。當時並沒有發現有任何「透視」現象，因此很難想像。不過ＣＣＤ的紅外線裝置是如何運作的我就不知了。
這個，需要作點深入專題研究
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
《泳裝人像攝影一般規範》
【轉自】http://www.dcview.com.tw/article/newreadarticle.asp?id=1830
（部分省略）
【拍攝現場】
請勿遲到，並隨身攜帶繳費證明身份證明；現場請遵從主辦人員調度。
模特兒 POSE 由現場幹部指導負責，拍攝者若有額外拍攝構思，可和現場活動幹部商量，模特兒之指導限口頭說明，請謹守勿碰觸模特兒肢體的原則。
除主辦單位之外，請勿攜帶 DV/MV/D8/Hi8...等攝錄影機。
為免模特兒疑慮，請勿攜帶 B+W093 / Hoya R72 ... 濾鏡。
除指定拍攝模特兒外，勿拍攝現場工作人員或是當次實習的模特兒。
【作品發表】
著作權為拍攝者所有，但不得使用於商業出版、發行用途( 例如圖書、專刊、月曆、名信片...等 )，主辦單位仍保有模特兒肖像權利；與設計相關合作單位( 如彩粧、服裝、建築設計 )之拍攝活動，主辦單位仍保有視覺設計之著作權利，模特兒得同意主辦單位有權發表於本站書刊及教學文章中使用。
可發表於攝影類網站之作品發表區，和網友進行技術交流，但不得發表於違反社會風俗之貼圖網站。
拍攝者為著作權擁有者，當相片遭轉貼，或導因於相片之發表致【模特兒 / 主辦單位】權益、形象受損，拍攝者同意以善意立場，盡力保護、協助站方保障模特兒。
作品相關- 專欄文章之運用，僅限於 DCView 網站。
作品相關- 模特兒特輯報導，僅限於 DCView 網站。
October 29, 2006
【轉】Forbidden Photos, Anyone?
【轉自】http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0423,haber,54075,15.html
Forbidden Photos, Anyone?
Subway shooters to set their sights on underground camera ban
by Matt Haber
June 4th, 2004 1:00 PM
Mike Epstein is not a terrorist, but if a proposed ban on photography on New York trains and buses goes into effect, he might very well find himself treated like one.
"How can they ban photographing unusual sights aboard trains and in stations?" wonders Epstein, who operates Satan's Laundromat, a website dedicated to "urban decay, strange signage, and general weirdness." "What about when someone boards the 1 train with bags full of fully inflated orange and red balloons that almost exactly match the colors of the seats: Do they really expect me to keep my camera in my pocket?"
You bet. The MTA's move to stop the shooting of unauthorized pictures or video has pissed-off everyone from photobloggers to subway advocates and free-speech activists. To show their opposition to the ban, a group of photographers gathered at the main information kiosk in Grand Central station Sunday, June 6th, at 1 p.m. They fanned out across several train lines, shooting photos throughout the system in a peaceful demonstration.
The demonstration started mere yards from an MTA-sponsored photography show called "The New York Subway: A Centennial Celebration." Most of the 16 subway-themed prints were taken during an earlier photo ban, which was taken off the books in 1994. The work includes work from such giants of the form as Bruce Davidson and Henri Cartier-Bresson.
The MTA isn't slated to vote on the measure until at least mid June, when a 45-day public comment period ends. Also included in regulation 21 NYCRR 1050.9c are stiffer penalties for hopping turnstiles, walking between cars, and using seats as footrests. Ostensibly designed to counter terrorist attacks, the new rules clearly extend to ordinary—and artistic—activity.
For New York City photobloggers like Epstein—amateur photographers who post digital images on their own sites—the proposed ban makes little sense. "It's utterly the wrong way to protect the subway," he says. "If there's anyone who won't be deterred by a $25 fine, it's an actual terrorist."
Others, like Jake Dobkin (bluejake.com), raise concerns about the ban's impact on civil rights. "First they cracked down on immigrants," he says, "then on people who were protesting the war in Iraq, and now they seem to be coming after artists."
What follows is a sampling of some of the imagery that would be lost if the ban went into effect, and e-mail interviews with the people who will be affected most: the artists.
------------------------------------
Eliot Shepard (slower.net), freelance computer programmer and photographer
How long have you been shooting the city?
I've been taking pictures in New York for about two and a half years. I take photos on the trains or in the stations about one in every three trips—so three times a week, maybe.
Have you ever been hassled by the authorities? When someone asks you to stop shooting, do you stop?
I've had people look at me angrily and give me some verbal abuse here and there, but I think they were just individuals who didn't want their picture taken. I've never been asked to stop taking photos.
What do you think is the main motivation for this ban?
To promote a vague public perception of security. I don't have a problem with making people feel safer, per se. Obviously the city doesn't work unless people do. It will be a great tragedy if law enforcement spends actual resources enforcing a silly ban at the expense of actually doing what they can to secure the system.
What effect will the ban have on the photoblogger or subway aficionado communities?
I think there will probably be some short-term galvanization, which will fade away because the ban is essentially unenforceable and will be widely ignored. If and when someone gets popped for violating it, there will probably be some fuss.
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Epstein (satanslaundromat.com), computer programmer and photographer
Have you ever encountered any problems with police or transit officials?
I've found that most subway police officers think that photography is already illegal, and there's no way to convince them otherwise. So I've taken to carrying a copy of the law with me. The only people this [regulation] will affect is law-abiding citizens.
An enormous amount of great photography has come out of the subway. Look at Bruce Davidson, who powerfully documented the run-down transit system of the '70s and '80s and its weary riders. He probably wouldn't have been able to get a permit at the time (no one knows if the MTA will even issue permits this time around!). Would we be better off without his art?
What are the larger implications of this ban for the city?
We have been conditioned to accept ever-greater incursions on our liberties in the name of security. But no one has advanced a coherent argument for how banning photography in public areas of the subway—not tracks and switchrooms mind you, but trains and platforms—has any effect whatsoever on security.
The subway is the great meeting place of New York City. Almost everyone rides it. Taking pictures of my fellow New Yorkers should be just as legal on a train as it is on the street. And people who like to look at pictures of trains all day, well, maybe they're a little odd, but they're utterly harmless.
Would you pay the proposed $25 fine?
I'm not worried about the fine. I'm worried about being harassed and made to identify myself, and being racially profiled by the police again. (Last time that happened, they decided I wasn't a threat because I have a Jewish last name. A photographer whose first name is Mohammed should have the same rights as one named Michael.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Rion Nakaya (rion.nu) is an information designer and photographer.
How will the photo ban affect you?
Honestly, I don't think the photo ban will affect me much. I've been taking pictures almost daily for more than 3 years here in the city, so I've learned to be relatively inconspicuous.
If there's a ban in effect, I doubt I'll be taking the camera out in front of a cop or transit workers, but on the average day where there is a great moment to be captured—crowds waiting for a train on a hot day, someone dressed outrageously, or details in an old station that I've never been to before—I can't imagine not trying to record it. A lot of things are banned on the subway, but rarely enforced.
Do subway riders look at you suspiciously when you're shooting?
Often, I'm not taking photos of people, as much as I am taking photos of station mosaics, signs or architectural details, so people tend to pass by me. If I am in a train car and taking photos in close quarters, they may glance toward me to check out what I'm doing, but mostly if people see me taking photos, they ignore it. More than likely, they just think I'm a tourist.
Have you ever been hassled by the NYPD in or around the subway?
Never. But again, it's habit for me to try and avoid drawing attention to myself when I'm taking photos. The few times I've had my camera out when cops were around—mostly around Times Square where I work and live—they just looked at me and then looked past me. I'm guessing they had more important things to pay attention to than a girl with a camera in Times Square.
What will be lost if this ban goes into effect?
People from all walks of life crowd in next to each [other] on the subway. It moves fast and the city depends on it every day to stay up and running, and that aspect makes it a symbol of what New York City culture is. Therefore, it's great photoblog fodder.
Subway musicians, morning commuters, moms with strollers who get helped up the stairs from strangers, tourists, stinky bums who lay sideways in the train seats, school kids on field trips, Yankee fans on the way to a game, regular people going home from a long day at work—all just a part of the subway culture. I don't know that those things will be "missed" photographically when you are technically banned from taking photos of them. I think, if anything, it may make those images a bit more rare or valuable for photobloggers—and other photographers—to capture and publish in the long run.
I think of Walker Evans' subway portraits in the late '30s–early '40s: the hair, makeup, or outfit of his subjects tells about our values and interests at that time—how the ads, newspapers, and materials in the train cars tell how we communicated and created. It's a phenomenal record of New York in that era.
I imagine that in a few decades, the images that NYC photobloggers are taking now will have some resonance as wonderful documentation when we're looking back. It would be a shame to not have our subways be a part of that record.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Dobkin (bluejake.com) is the publisher of Gothamist and photographer.
How often do you shoot in and around the subway?
I shoot in the subway about twice a month. However, if I'm working on a subway-themed series like the one I did at the Smith and 9th streets station, I might shoot in the subway three nights in a row.
Have you ever encountered a problem?
Never. I try to shoot at low traffic stations and avoid getting in anyone's way. I use a small tripod to avoid attracting attention. The police have asked me what I'm doing a few times. I always tell them that I'm an amateur photographer working on a subway-themed project, and they've been satisfied with that.
Do you think the proposed ban is part of a larger agenda in the city?
I think that since 9-11 there has been a slow erosion of civil liberties in the city. The threat of terrorism has been used to justify cracking down on some of our fundamental rights: the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to equal protection and due process under the law. It's a scary time, but people seem to be waking up to the threat and mobilizing to protect constitutional rights. Things like the subway photography ban certainly throw these issues out into the open.
Will you stop shooting once the law goes into effect?
No, I plan to continue shooting in the subway. I'll be more careful about taking pictures in areas that are heavily policed, but I'm willing to risk a ticket to pursue my work.
What will be lost if this ban goes into effect? How will it impact the community—both of photobloggers and the larger population of the city?
The largest impact will probably be on amateur photographers like us. It's sad, because it would be hard to find a group of people who love New York or the New York City subway system more than us. The ban will also affect tourists, who will no doubt be hassled, and the police, who will have to waste lots of time bothering people and writing tickets. A huge waste of time and resources all around. I'd encourage all of the amateur photographers around the city—and anyone who cares about our civil liberties—to write the mayor and the transit authority. If enough people make their voices heard, maybe the transit authority will reconsider the ban.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Northrop (hnorthrop.com) is a photographer and the producer of villagevoice.com
Do you shoot in and around the subway a lot?
Sometimes. Depends on how crowded it is. I try to respect the personal space of those around me in a car. I mean, we are all stuck there and it sucks on so many other levels that the last thing most people want is a camera pointed at them.
Have you ever encountered any problems with police or transit officials?
No, not personally, but I have witnessed the MTA on more than one occasion get shitty with other photographers who were obviously not tourists. This seems to happen around the Times Square Station the most. It's strange to think that a public space can be regulated in regards to the imagery depicting it. I am not sure just how that particular form of censorship would work. What constitutes a tourist and how is the MTA going to profile that? If I wear a fanny pack and appear lost, will that work?
Would you pay the fine?
I would only pay it if threatened with jail time. Otherwise, the tickets would gather dust or end up taped in my paper journal. If I see a shot in the subway, I am going to take it. Documentation of the subways will continue regardless of the law. In street photography, and I consider the subways to be part of the street photography framework, it is always a given that at some point someone is going to bitch at you. They will tell you to stop, "put the camera down . . . walk away you are trespassing." It is a dirty business that documents our history and is essential.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Holmes (joesnyc.streetnine.com) is a freelance writer and photographer
How often do you shoot in the subway?
I shoot in the subway once or twice a week—basically whenever I ride the trains.
Have you ever had problems with police or transit workers?
I haven't yet been hassled by any police or subway workers, but then I've been very discreet. I heard years ago, when I first moved to NYC in 1984, that photography was illegal in the subways. It wasn't until the Times article ("Citing Security, Subway Officials Seek Picture Ban," by Robert D. McFadden, from May 21, 2004) about the proposed ban a couple weeks ago that I learned the original ban was lifted in 1994.
What will be lost if this ban happens?
A tremendous amount will be lost if photographers stop shooting in the subways. The subway stations are some of the last vestiges of the old pre-Disney, pre-cleansed New York. Times Square has been turned into a mall—and I have very mixed feelings about the change. But when you step off the street and into the Fourth Avenue R and F station here in Brooklyn, all that goes away. You're instantly transported into the unreconstructed, unrenovated, ungentrified, un-prettified New York of decades ago. You can walk through that entire station—and it's just one example—and see almost nothing that wasn't there in the '50s or '60s. Walk down a passageway in any of the older stations, and all around you'll see what makes New York run—the pipes and conduits and strangely-labeled doors, the barred cages where the workers hang equipment and helmets and lamps, the huge steel beams that support the streets above, dozens of layers of paint, unironic barely grammatical signs not composed by an ad agency . . . I could go on and on.
But even that New York is gradually being gutted and replaced, one station at a time. Without the street photographers and photobloggers down there taking pictures, it's all slowly being lost forever.
And of course, no matter what condition any subway station is in, the subway riders represent the real New York. You can sit on the train and look around and see a dozen languages being read and spoken. The rich and the poor, the old and the young—the subway is the last place where they all stand literally shoulder to shoulder. You can't recreate that anywhere else in the city.
Do you see any larger issues here about the city or civil liberties?
The MTA and police once again propose totally ineffectual and pointless restrictions to give the appearance, and only the appearance, of vigilance. It's dismaying to hear our mayor speak out against the ban only in terms of how it might scare away picture-snapping tourists. Everything boils down to money.
Will you continue to shoot regardless? How many fines will it take for you to stop?
I will keep shooting, and I do not plan to get caught. I'm pretty sneaky, especially with my Nikon 4500 which has a twist body that lets me shoot literally from the hip. I'd be willing to pay a couple fines a year to keep shooting. There's simply no better subject than the world under the streets of New York City.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest
Contest Closed: Thanks for Entering
Submit your own digital photos of the New York City subway for a chance to win a $100 gift certificate to the New York Transit Museum Store Online or five $20 MetroCards.
Official Rules - No Purchase Necessary
1. To enter, please submit your photograph with your name, address, city, state, zip code, day phone number, and e-mail address, and a title or description of your photograph. Email your entry to: Villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest. Required format: digital only; jpeg; no wider than 600 pixels, no larger than 100k. ALL ENTRIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY 5 pm on July 9, 2004. Not responsible for lost, late, misdirected, or illegible images. No correspondence can be answered. By entering, you agree to grant Village Voice Media, Inc. a non-exclusive, royalty free license to publish and display your photograph in both the print and electronic versions of The Village Voice, and in related products in any and all media, whether now known or thereafter devised, without compensation and for the purposes of trade or promotion. 2. Contest open is to legal residents of the U.S. (excluding Puerto Rico). Employees of Village Voice Media, Inc. are not eligible. 3. Two prizes will be awarded, a Grand Prize and a Runner-Up Prize. The Grand Prize of $100 Gift Certificate for the New York Transit Museum Store Online will be awarded to the top winner of the Photography contest. The Runner Up Prize of Five $20 Metrocards will be awarded to the runner-up. 4. Winners will be selected on or about July 16, 2004 by The Village Voice Online editorial department on the basis of talent, originality, style and creativity. Limit of one winner per household. The decision of The Village Voice Online judges is final. Winners will be notified by phone and e-mail and will be required to complete an Affidavit of Eligibility and Liability/Publicity/Materials Release which must be returned within 3 days of receipt of the notification letter or alternate winners will be selected. Winners under the age of eighteen (18) must have the written consent of their parent or legal guardian. Taxes are the winner's responsibility. Prize winners (or their parent or legal guardian, if applicable) shall agree in writing that Village Voice Media, Inc. and anyone they may authorize may without compensation use winner's name, photograph or other likeness, biographical information and statements concerning the Contest or Village Voice Media, Inc. for purposes of advertising and promotion without additional compensation. For a list of prize winners, see villagevoice.com or send a self-addressed stamped envelope before August 31, 2004 to: Villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest, 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003. All federal, state, and local laws and regulations apply. Void where prohibited by law.
NO PURCHASE REQUIRED. By submitting, I hereby certify that the photo I am submitting to the Villagevoice.com Forbidden Photos Contest is original with me, and that I have all necessary rights and authority to submit the photo and grant to Village Voice Media, Inc. the rights purported to be granted, including third party rights.
【轉】dear Starbucks, say it ain’t true?
這是從一位律師的部落格轉來的。
到底真的假的？有在Starbucks工作的人嗎？真有這規定嗎？
從那些熱烈的回應看來，這，好像不假哩？
----------------------------------------------------------------------
轉自：http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001223.shtml
[ May 23 03 at 2:10 PM ]
So I have this from an extremely reliable source, who vouches totally for the facts that follow.
Story one: Last month while visiting Charleston, three women went into a Starbucks. They were spending the weekend together and one of them had a disposable camera with her. To commemorate their time with one and other they decided to take round robin pictures while sitting around communing. The manager evidently careened out of control, screaming at them, “Didn’t they know it was illegal to take photographs in a Starbucks. She insisted that she had to have the disposable camera because this was an absolute violation of Starbuck’s copyright of their entire ‘environment’—that everything in the place is protected and cannot be used with Starbuck’s express permission.
Story two: At our local [North Carolina] Starbucks, a friend’s daughter, who often has her camera with her, was notified that she was not allowed to take pictures in any Starbucks. No explanation was given, but pressed I would think that the manager there would give a similar rationale.
I wonder what would happen if hundreds of people from around the country experimented this holiday weekend by taking pictures at their local Starbucks …
四天後，律師又貼了這篇。
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001233.shtml
Starbucks responds
According to friends at the wonderful Bumperactive.com, Starbucks says it has no policy about non-media photographs in its stores. Someone should tell the stores…
到底真的假的？有在Starbucks工作的人嗎？真有這規定嗎？
從那些熱烈的回應看來，這，好像不假哩？
----------------------------------------------------------------------
轉自：http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001223.shtml
[ May 23 03 at 2:10 PM ]
So I have this from an extremely reliable source, who vouches totally for the facts that follow.
Story one: Last month while visiting Charleston, three women went into a Starbucks. They were spending the weekend together and one of them had a disposable camera with her. To commemorate their time with one and other they decided to take round robin pictures while sitting around communing. The manager evidently careened out of control, screaming at them, “Didn’t they know it was illegal to take photographs in a Starbucks. She insisted that she had to have the disposable camera because this was an absolute violation of Starbuck’s copyright of their entire ‘environment’—that everything in the place is protected and cannot be used with Starbuck’s express permission.
Story two: At our local [North Carolina] Starbucks, a friend’s daughter, who often has her camera with her, was notified that she was not allowed to take pictures in any Starbucks. No explanation was given, but pressed I would think that the manager there would give a similar rationale.
I wonder what would happen if hundreds of people from around the country experimented this holiday weekend by taking pictures at their local Starbucks …
四天後，律師又貼了這篇。
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001233.shtml
Starbucks responds
According to friends at the wonderful Bumperactive.com, Starbucks says it has no policy about non-media photographs in its stores. Someone should tell the stores…
【轉】Subway Officials Seek Ban on Picture-Taking
【轉自】http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/nyregion/21subway.html?ex=1162180800&en=9d849dd709cbd968&ei=5070
紐約時報的文章，要註冊才能讀。不過我還是把它copy/paste到底下：
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
Published: May 21, 2004
Citing the security of 7 million daily riders, 48,000 employees and its transportation network, New York City Transit yesterday proposed a ban on unauthorized photography, filming and videotaping on city subways, buses and Staten Island Railway trains. The press and businesses or individuals with permits would be exempt.
Transit officials also proposed a tougher rule against turnstile jumping, banning it even if a miscreant has a fare card and acts out of frustration when the card or a turnstile malfunctions, and they suggested new rules against walking between subway cars, putting feet on seats and misusing student or senior reduced-fare cards.
If approved by New York City Transit's parent, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, next fall after a public-comment period, the changes would become the system's first new rules of conduct in a decade, joining prohibitions against graffiti, littering, spitting, smoking, panhandling, loud radio playing, drinking alcoholic beverages and going onto subway tracks or into tunnels or other unauthorized areas.
"The world we live in has changed dramatically since 1994, so has our operating environment," said Lawrence G. Reuter, president of New York City Transit. "These changes to our rules of conduct are intended to enhance security and safety, not only for our customers but our employees as well."
The proposed ban on photography, filming and videotaping drew immediate objections from the New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign. "We think it's a mistake to turn the subways into a scary underground where you can't take pictures," said Gene Russianoff, a staff lawyer. "We respect the need for security in the transit system but believe that there are important values in having photographers document life and conditions on the subways and buses."
He noted that the M.T.A. was sponsoring an exhibition at Grand Central Terminal of photos taken over decades of life in the subways.
Mr. Russianoff said the proposed ban on picture-taking could raise First Amendment issues as well. While members of the press with identity cards issued by the police would be exempt, other people and businesses would need written permission. "No standards are detailed in the proposed rules for issuing such authorizations," he said.
But Charles F. Seaton, a spokesman for New York City Transit, brushed aside such objections. He said any person or commercial enterprise with legitimate needs, including film and television producers, advertisers, artists and others, "would all be allowed" to take pictures as long as they obtained written permission in advance.
While transit officers would make common-sense judgments about issuing summonses to tourists who take pictures without knowing the rules, even visitors would be subject to fines, Mr. Seaton said, although there is no provision for confiscation of cameras. He said taking a picture or filming without authorization would be subject to a relatively low $25 fine.
Spitting, smoking and littering carry a $50 fine, he said, while vandalism and other more serious offenses are subject to penalties of $100 or more.
The rules of conduct on the transit system are as old as the subways, which mark their centennial this year. Officials acknowledge that enforcement has always been something of a problem, with a few thousand officers responsible for 468 stations, 660 miles of track and a vast network of bus routes. The use of cellphone and other miniature cameras may also complicate enforcement of a photography ban.
But Mr. Seaton noted that this would not be the first ban on filming and picture-taking in the city subways. One was imposed in the early 1930's, he said, for reasons that are no longer clear, and was in force until 1994, when transit officials decided to relax it after embarrassing news reports that a woman had been given a summons for taking a picture on a subway in the Bronx.
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the bombing that killed hundreds on a commuter train in Madrid earlier this year, tighter security has been a high priority, Mr. Seaton said. The other proposed rule changes are also needed, he said.
After the proposed rules are published in the New York State Register early next month, a 45-day period of public comment would ensue. Modifications might then be offered. Finally, New York City Transit would seek final approval by the board of the M.T.A. The board does not meet in August, but would probably consider the rules in September or October.
紐約時報的文章，要註冊才能讀。不過我還是把它copy/paste到底下：
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
Published: May 21, 2004
Citing the security of 7 million daily riders, 48,000 employees and its transportation network, New York City Transit yesterday proposed a ban on unauthorized photography, filming and videotaping on city subways, buses and Staten Island Railway trains. The press and businesses or individuals with permits would be exempt.
Transit officials also proposed a tougher rule against turnstile jumping, banning it even if a miscreant has a fare card and acts out of frustration when the card or a turnstile malfunctions, and they suggested new rules against walking between subway cars, putting feet on seats and misusing student or senior reduced-fare cards.
If approved by New York City Transit's parent, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, next fall after a public-comment period, the changes would become the system's first new rules of conduct in a decade, joining prohibitions against graffiti, littering, spitting, smoking, panhandling, loud radio playing, drinking alcoholic beverages and going onto subway tracks or into tunnels or other unauthorized areas.
"The world we live in has changed dramatically since 1994, so has our operating environment," said Lawrence G. Reuter, president of New York City Transit. "These changes to our rules of conduct are intended to enhance security and safety, not only for our customers but our employees as well."
The proposed ban on photography, filming and videotaping drew immediate objections from the New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign. "We think it's a mistake to turn the subways into a scary underground where you can't take pictures," said Gene Russianoff, a staff lawyer. "We respect the need for security in the transit system but believe that there are important values in having photographers document life and conditions on the subways and buses."
He noted that the M.T.A. was sponsoring an exhibition at Grand Central Terminal of photos taken over decades of life in the subways.
Mr. Russianoff said the proposed ban on picture-taking could raise First Amendment issues as well. While members of the press with identity cards issued by the police would be exempt, other people and businesses would need written permission. "No standards are detailed in the proposed rules for issuing such authorizations," he said.
But Charles F. Seaton, a spokesman for New York City Transit, brushed aside such objections. He said any person or commercial enterprise with legitimate needs, including film and television producers, advertisers, artists and others, "would all be allowed" to take pictures as long as they obtained written permission in advance.
While transit officers would make common-sense judgments about issuing summonses to tourists who take pictures without knowing the rules, even visitors would be subject to fines, Mr. Seaton said, although there is no provision for confiscation of cameras. He said taking a picture or filming without authorization would be subject to a relatively low $25 fine.
Spitting, smoking and littering carry a $50 fine, he said, while vandalism and other more serious offenses are subject to penalties of $100 or more.
The rules of conduct on the transit system are as old as the subways, which mark their centennial this year. Officials acknowledge that enforcement has always been something of a problem, with a few thousand officers responsible for 468 stations, 660 miles of track and a vast network of bus routes. The use of cellphone and other miniature cameras may also complicate enforcement of a photography ban.
But Mr. Seaton noted that this would not be the first ban on filming and picture-taking in the city subways. One was imposed in the early 1930's, he said, for reasons that are no longer clear, and was in force until 1994, when transit officials decided to relax it after embarrassing news reports that a woman had been given a summons for taking a picture on a subway in the Bronx.
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the bombing that killed hundreds on a commuter train in Madrid earlier this year, tighter security has been a high priority, Mr. Seaton said. The other proposed rule changes are also needed, he said.
After the proposed rules are published in the New York State Register early next month, a 45-day period of public comment would ensue. Modifications might then be offered. Finally, New York City Transit would seek final approval by the board of the M.T.A. The board does not meet in August, but would probably consider the rules in September or October.
【轉】Don’t Shoot!!
911之後，美東大城的公共運輸系統紛紛祭出no-picture taking policy為預防恐怖份子攻擊的策略。但是，有用嗎？真的有必要嗎？以下為一位搭乘紐澤西公共運輸系統的乘客針對這個政策的留言：
------------------------------------------------------------------
【轉自】http://www.nj.com/weblogs/transit/index.ssf?/mtlogs/njo_transit/archives/2004_05.html
Friday, May 21, 2004
Don’t Shoot!!
Yesterday, the Trenton Times ran an article about NJ Transit’s newly enforced “no picture-taking” policy.
The policy itself is not new – NJ Transit has had this on the books since 2000. But it seems they’ve now begun to enforce it as part of their security system.
The agency, she said, fears people taking photographs of trains, railroad structures and other equipment may not always be train buffs, especially after the March 11 train bombings in Spain and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although the policy was put into effect before both events.
This, as you can imagine, has railroad enthusiasts up in arms. And yes… there are actually quite a number of railroad enthusiasts.
Just google the words NJ Transit and see how many pictures of trains, tracks, etc you come up with. If terrorists really want pictures of NJ Transit trains so badly, they’ve already got access to them.
Today, a news story from the AP, indicates NJ Transit is not as prepared, security wise, as it really ought to be. The reason: surprise, surprise – a shortage of federal funding.
"With the war and the tax cuts, we're being told over and over that there's just no money," said Dan O'Connell, state legislative director with the United Transportation Union. "I'd be less than honest if I said our members aren't concerned. The state of New Jersey has tried to step up and do the right thing. But there's no extra money available in our budget. It must come from the federal government."
The necessary improvements to increase security call for garbage can inspections, security coordinators, and reminders to passengers and crew to report suspicious persons or activity.
I don’t know about your train experiences, but I can assure you, NJ Transit has two of the three covered. When’s the last time you were able to actually throw something out on board an NJ Transit train – or at the station?
And if I hear one more message reminding me to watch out for suspicious persons or unattended baggage… I just might explode. Everyone’s suspicious, for Pete’s sake. Half the people waiting for the PATH train mutter or sing to themselves. Some can’t seem to sit still. And others are afraid to make eye contact.
There’s a guy on my afternoon train who keeps trying to strike up a conversation, even going so far as to follow me into whatever seat I choose to occupy. It’s creepy, to be sure. But worthy of reporting? I think not.
Back to Thursday’s Times story for a minute.
Lyndon Henry works as a transportation planner and data analyst for the Capitol Metro mass transit system in Austin, Texas, and as a consultant to www.lightrailnow.org. He said NJ Transit's policy is a "huge concern" to people working in the public transit profession "since much of our work depends upon the use of photos to inform the public about rail transit issues."
…
Henry, in an e-mail, wrote, "The ban on photography, using the pretext of the war on terrorism, invokes serious civil liberties and free speech concern. Furthermore, it threatens the traditional ongoing historic documentation of rail transit operations."
…
NJ Transit should welcome photographers, (Douglas John Bowen, president of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers) said. "They're going to be the ones to see something suspicious," he said.
Touché.
-- Mairin
------------------------------------------------------------------
【轉自】http://www.nj.com/weblogs/transit/index.ssf?/mtlogs/njo_transit/archives/2004_05.html
Friday, May 21, 2004
Don’t Shoot!!
Yesterday, the Trenton Times ran an article about NJ Transit’s newly enforced “no picture-taking” policy.
The policy itself is not new – NJ Transit has had this on the books since 2000. But it seems they’ve now begun to enforce it as part of their security system.
The agency, she said, fears people taking photographs of trains, railroad structures and other equipment may not always be train buffs, especially after the March 11 train bombings in Spain and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although the policy was put into effect before both events.
This, as you can imagine, has railroad enthusiasts up in arms. And yes… there are actually quite a number of railroad enthusiasts.
Just google the words NJ Transit and see how many pictures of trains, tracks, etc you come up with. If terrorists really want pictures of NJ Transit trains so badly, they’ve already got access to them.
Today, a news story from the AP, indicates NJ Transit is not as prepared, security wise, as it really ought to be. The reason: surprise, surprise – a shortage of federal funding.
"With the war and the tax cuts, we're being told over and over that there's just no money," said Dan O'Connell, state legislative director with the United Transportation Union. "I'd be less than honest if I said our members aren't concerned. The state of New Jersey has tried to step up and do the right thing. But there's no extra money available in our budget. It must come from the federal government."
The necessary improvements to increase security call for garbage can inspections, security coordinators, and reminders to passengers and crew to report suspicious persons or activity.
I don’t know about your train experiences, but I can assure you, NJ Transit has two of the three covered. When’s the last time you were able to actually throw something out on board an NJ Transit train – or at the station?
And if I hear one more message reminding me to watch out for suspicious persons or unattended baggage… I just might explode. Everyone’s suspicious, for Pete’s sake. Half the people waiting for the PATH train mutter or sing to themselves. Some can’t seem to sit still. And others are afraid to make eye contact.
There’s a guy on my afternoon train who keeps trying to strike up a conversation, even going so far as to follow me into whatever seat I choose to occupy. It’s creepy, to be sure. But worthy of reporting? I think not.
Back to Thursday’s Times story for a minute.
Lyndon Henry works as a transportation planner and data analyst for the Capitol Metro mass transit system in Austin, Texas, and as a consultant to www.lightrailnow.org. He said NJ Transit's policy is a "huge concern" to people working in the public transit profession "since much of our work depends upon the use of photos to inform the public about rail transit issues."
…
Henry, in an e-mail, wrote, "The ban on photography, using the pretext of the war on terrorism, invokes serious civil liberties and free speech concern. Furthermore, it threatens the traditional ongoing historic documentation of rail transit operations."
…
NJ Transit should welcome photographers, (Douglas John Bowen, president of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers) said. "They're going to be the ones to see something suspicious," he said.
Touché.
-- Mairin
【轉】National Register of Historic Places...Photo Policy Expansion
從1839到2006，攝影術經過一連串驚人的發展與革新。除了硬體器材的更新之外，印相／影像輸出方式的轉變更是大大影響影像收藏／保存的方式。這個網站是美國政府古蹟認定保存的單位，以下的內容說明提交照片到該單位時需遵守的要點。這些規則條文亦反應出當今政府機構、博物館、藝術品收藏等單位對影像保存的要求與策略，值得參考。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
轉自：http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/policyexpansion.htm
Photographs submitted as official documentation to the National Register and National Historic Landmark (NR-NHL) programs are expected to last 75 years or longer before showing significant signs of fading, deterioration, or discoloration. Black-and-white prints have been required since the inception of both programs because of their superior permanence. This policy significantly expands the range of photographic media that may be submitted as official documentation. While we continue to accept conventional black and white photographs, digital images produced by methods demonstrated to meet the 75-year permanence standard are also now acceptable.
Photographic Standard
A 75-year-permanence standard is intended to ensure the longevity of NR-NHL documentation and applies to all forms of photodocumentation, including those types of photographs currently available and any introduced in the future. Black-and-white images printed on silver-emulsion fiber-based papers and black-and-white images printed on silver-emulsion resin-coated (RC) papers have been acceptable for some time. As of this writing, black-and-white prints produced from digital images that have been demonstrated to meet or exceed a 75-year permanence standard also are acceptable. The Federal government does not endorse any particular commercial product or process. A non-comprehensive list of photographic ink and paper combinations that have been demonstrated to meet the 75-year permanence standard may be found under the Digital Photographs section as guidance for implementing this policy expansion. No photos processed with chromogenic processing (C-41) or printed on chromogenic papers currently meet the established standard and are, therefore, not acceptable; however, this may change with future innovations.
Prints produced from digital photographs submitted as official documentation must be accompanied by corresponding electronic image files. Electronic image files must be saved as uncompressed .TIF (Tagged Image File format) files on CD-R media, in keeping with guidance on digital photographic records issued by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. It is recommended that digital images be saved in 8-bit (or larger) color format, which provides maximum detail even when printed in black-and-white. The file name for each electronic image saved on the CD-R must correspond with the photo log included in the nomination and the information labeled on the back of each photograph, and it should also reference the state and county in which the property is located. For example, the image files for the James Smith House in Jefferson County, Alabama, would be saved as “AL_JeffersonCounty_Smith1.tif,” “AL_JeffersonCounty_Smith2.tif,” and so forth.
In the case of a large historic district, it is optional to add the inventory number of the property to the end of the digital image file name. That number should correspond to the historic district mapping and inventory documentation. For example, for a photo depicting building #20 in the Montpelier Historic District, we would suggest: "VT_WashingtonCounty_MontpelierHD89_Property20.tif" (89 indicates that it is the 89th photo of the historic district, and 20 indicates that it is building #20 as identified in the district inventory and map).
CD-Rs submitted with a nomination must be labeled with:
* the name of the property.
* the associated multiple property documentation form (if applicable).
* the county and state where the property is located.
Basic Requirements
Labeling Photographs
Use of National Register Photographs
Guidelines for Photographic Coverage
Guidance on Implementing the Standard
Digital Photographs
Acceptable Ink and Paper Combinations For Digital Images
Photographic Technology
For Further Information
Basic Requirements
Photographs must be:
* unmounted (do not affix photographs to archival paper or any other material using staples, paper clips, glue, or other means).
* at least 3½ x 5 inches.
* properly processed and thoroughly washed.
* labeled in pencil or archival photo-labeling pen.
Photographs with adhesive labels will not be accepted. The labels will eventually deteriorate and detach from the photograph, and their acidity may cause damage. Photographs that are improperly processed or incorrectly labeled will be returned. One copy of each photograph is submitted to the National Register or the National Historic Landmarks Survey. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribal Preservation Office (TPO), or Federal Preservation Office (FPO) may require one or more additional sets of photographs; nomination preparers should consult nominating authorities to ensure compliance with all applicable standards.
Labeling Photographs
Two methods of labeling photographs are acceptable. Labeling may be done by printing in pencil (soft lead works best) or with an archival photo-labeling pen on the back of each photograph. The following information must be included:
1. Name of the property or, for districts, the name of the building or street address followed by the name of the district.
2. County and state where the property is located.
3. Name of the photographer.
4. Date of photograph.
5. Location of original negative (if film is used).
6. Description of view indicating direction of camera.
7. Photograph number. For districts, use this number to identify the vantage point on the accompanying sketch map.
An alternative method of labeling is to use a continuation sheet(s). The photographs should be labeled in the manner described above with the name of the property, county and state, and photo number (items 1, 2, and 7). Then, on a separate continuation sheet, list the remaining information (items 3-6). Information common to all photographs, such as the photographer’s name or the location of negatives, may be listed once in a statement on the continuation sheet.
Use of National Register Photographs
By allowing a photograph to be submitted as official documentation, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for print and electronic publication and other purposes, including but not limited to duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audiovisual presentations.
Guidelines for Photographic Coverage
Photographs submitted to the National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic Landmarks Survey as official documentation should be clear, well-composed, and provide an accurate visual representation of the property and its significant features. They must illustrate the qualities discussed in the description and statement of significance. Photographs should show historically significant features and also any alterations that have affected the property’s historic integrity.
The necessary number of photographic views depends on the size and complexity of the property. Submit as many photographs as needed to depict the current condition and significant features of the property. A few photographs may be sufficient to document a single building or object. Larger, more complex properties and historic districts will require a number of photos. Prints of historic photographs may supplement photodocumentation and be particularly useful in illustrating changes that have occurred over time.
Buildings, structures, and objects:
* Submit photographs showing the principal facades and the setting in which the property is located.
* Additions, alterations, intrusions, and dependencies should appear in the photographs.
* Include views of interiors, outbuildings, landscaping, or unusual features if they contribute to the significance of the property.
Historic and archeological sites:
* Submit photographs showing the condition of the site and any above-ground or surface features and disturbances.
* If relevant to the evaluation of significance, include drawings or photographs illustrating artifacts that have been removed from the site.
* At least one photograph must show the physical environment and topography of the site.
Architectural and Historic Districts:
* Submit photographs showing major building types and styles, pivotal buildings and structures, and representative noncontributing resources.
* Streetscapes and landscapes are recommended. Aerial views may also be useful. Views of significant topographic features and spatial elements should also be submitted.
* Views of individual buildings are not necessary if streetscape views clearly illustrate the significant historical and architectural qualities of the district.
* Key all photographs to the sketch map for the district.
Archeological Districts:
* Submit photographs of the principal sites and site types within the district following the guidelines for archaeological sites (see above).
Guidance on Implementing the Standard
Black-and-white prints have been required since the inception of both the National Register and National Historic Landmarks programs because of their superior permanence. The longevity of a photograph depends on the materials and processing methods used and the conditions under which it is stored. The NR-NHL collections are maintained at the National Park Service offices in Washington, D.C., and are stored under climate-controlled conditions. Each nomination is placed in an acid-free file folder, with photographs stored in a separate acid-free sleeve. The conditions under which nominations are stored are designed for archival longevity. To make certain that nominations last as long as possible, it is essential that nomination preparers and nominating authorities submit photographs that meet the NR-NHL standards. Ensuring the longevity of official documentation, including photographs, is essential for the administration of federal historic preservation programs. In addition to the regulatory protections and grants and tax incentives available under federal law to properties listed in the National Register or as National Historic Landmarks, the nomination files for these programs constitute an irreplaceable archive of American history.
When the National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey were established, black-and-white prints were generally made using silver-emulsion fiber-based paper, which has outstanding archival stability. If stored under proper conditions, black-and-white prints on fiber-based paper will easily last 150 years or more. In the late 1970s, resin-coated (RC) papers became popular because of their lower cost and ease of processing. Use of fiber-based papers consequently became limited to specialized applications. In response to these changes, the National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey began accepting photographs printed on RC paper in the early 1980s. The limitations of this policy became clear in recent years with the advent of digital photography, the introduction of black-and-white films that can be developed and printed using color (C-41) processing, and the declining use of conventional black-and-white photography. The use of the 75-year permanence standard for all forms of photo documentation, no matter what methods are used to produce the photographs in question, ensures that the photo policy will continue to be applicable as manufacturers introduce new products and discontinue others. It provides a basis for evaluating all currently available photographic materials and those introduced in the future.
Nominating authorities and nomination preparers are advised that manufacturers’ claims may sometimes overstate the expected longevity of products. In some cases, nominating authorities may be required to provide verifiable information referencing tests conducted by an independent laboratory to demonstrate that the prints in question meet the 75-year permanence standard. This does not mean that nominating authorities will be expected to contract with independent laboratories to test photographic materials or required to submit test data with each nomination. It may, however, be necessary to research the expected permanency of photographs when evaluating new photographic materials or processing methods. Nominating authorities are advised to consult the sources included in the For Further Information section to identify photographic materials and processing methods that meet the 75-year permanence standard. Other valuable sources of guidance include curators and archivists who specialize in photographs at state archives, libraries, and colleges and universities. In addition, manufacturers sometimes make available results of independent testing.
Nominating authorities and nomination preparers should also be aware that the proliferation of so-called “archival” products has made it difficult to identify products that meet the NR-NHL documentation standards. No firm, universally acceptable definition of archival exists, and many manufacturers now use the term for marketing purposes. In some instances, products labeled archival will last considerably longer than non-archival products but may not meet the NR-NHL standards. Independent testing has shown that some popular photographic papers marketed as archival, for example, will begin deteriorating in far less than 75 years and therefore cannot be accepted as official documentation. Therefore, archival products should not be accepted at face value but only if they meet the NR-NHL documentation standards.
Digital Photographs
Several options are available for nominating authorities who wish to submit photographic prints produced from digital images. Consulting a photo lab in your area that offers professional services is a good starting point. A number of commercial processing methods produce high-quality prints from digital images that meet the NR-NHL standards. If digital services that produce acceptable images at reasonable cost are locally available, this may prove satisfactory for many nominating authorities.
Another option is to produce prints in-house with an inkjet or dye-sublimation photo printer that can use special archival inks and photo papers. While most photo printers made for the consumer market are designed to produce color prints that last only a few years before fading, a number of manufacturers now offer models which, with the correct inks and papers, can produce prints with an expected lifespan comparable to or better than traditional black-and-white prints on RC paper. These printers can be obtained at reasonable cost. Producing photographic prints in-house may result in long-term cost savings and also offers the important advantage of providing control over the imaging process.
Acceptable Ink and Paper Combinations For Digital Images
The non-comprehensive list below includes products that meet the NR-NHL permanence standard. Specific printers are not identified, as the longevity of a print is dependent on the ink and paper combinations used to produce it, rather than on the printer.
Epson UltraChrome pigmented inks
Epson Premium Glossy Paper
Epson Premium Semigloss Photo Paper
Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper
Epson Premium Semimatte Photo Paper
Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper
Somerset Velvet for Epson
Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper
Epson Textured Fine Art Paper
Epson Enhanced Matte Paper
Epson Picture Mate inks Epson PictureMate Photo Paper
Hewlett-Packard (HP) 84/85 dye-based inkset
HP Premium Plus Photo and Proofing Gloss
HP Premium Plus High Gloss Photo Paper
HP Premium Plus Soft Gloss Photo Paper
HP Premium Photo Paper, Gloss
HP Premium Photo Paper, Soft Gloss
Hewlett-Packard 59 gray photo cartridge HP Premium Plus and HP Premium Photo Papers (high gloss, glossy, and soft gloss)
Hewlett-Packard 100 gray photo cartridge HP Premium Plus and HP Premium Photo Papers (high gloss, glossy, and soft gloss)
Hewlett-Packard Vivera inks (95 and 97 tri-color cartridges)
HP Premium Plus and HP Premium Photo Papers (high gloss, glossy, and soft gloss)
Photographic Technology
The following information about basic types of photographic materials and processing methods is intended to help nominating authorities and nomination preparers obtain photographs that meet the NR-NHL standards. It addresses questions about currently available products and commonly used terms that have compounded the difficulty of obtaining acceptable photographs. While not comprehensive, this guidance provides information for making informed choices among the vast range of products available in the photographic marketplace.
The new technologies and photographic materials introduced in recent years have produced the most dramatic changes in photography since the advent of color films and printing papers in the 1960s. One consequence of these changes is the reduced availability of conventional black-and-white films, papers, and processing. In many cases, photographic labs capable of producing high-quality black-and-white photographs can be found only in major metropolitan areas. Declining demand for traditional black-and-white photography has resulted in significantly higher costs, which places an added burden on nominating authorities and nomination preparers. At the same time, improvements in digital technology have resulted in the availability of black-and-white prints that can be obtained at reasonable cost and meet the NR-NHL documentation standards.
Much of the recent confusion faced by nominating authorities and nomination preparers stems from the introduction of chromogenic black-and-white films, which share more similarities with color films than traditional black-and-white films. Chromogenic black-and-white films, produced by manufacturers such as Kodak and Illford, are processed and printed using C-41 processing, the method most commonly used for color photographs. Unlike traditional black-and-white films, the silver-halide crystals in the emulsion layer of a chromogenic film are replaced with dyes during the developing process, in the same way that occurs in processing color film. Chromogenic black-and-white films, which can be developed at one-hour photo labs and similar facilities, make it possible for photographers to obtain black-and-white prints quickly and at low cost. The longevity of these prints, however, tends to be poor. Because they are produced with color developing and processing methods and are printed on color paper, they are essentially color photographs. As a result, they do not meet the NR-NHL standards.
Like conventional photographs, the longevity of prints made with digital imaging technology depends largely on the materials and ink used. Improvements in technology and growing demand for digital prints have led manufacturers to introduce new photo papers, inks, and printing systems, and it is now possible to obtain photographs made from digital images that equal or surpass the longevity of conventional black-and-white photographs on RC paper. Prints made from digital images are available from photo labs that offer digital services or can be produced using printers and photo materials widely available to consumers. Available types of digital printing papers include versions similar to traditional RC and fiber-based black-and-white papers. As with conventional photographic materials, the National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey recommend that nominating authorities conduct careful research and check manufacturers’ claims against independent laboratory testing before selecting digital photo products.
For Further Information
Because of continual changes in photographic technology, determining the longevity of photographic materials will continue to be challenging. The National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey cannot undertake detailed study of new products as they become available. SHPOs, FPOs, and TPOs are encouraged to bring new imaging technologies that appear to meet the NR-NHL documentation standards to the attention of the NR-NHL staff. Nominating authorities and nomination preparers are encouraged to consult reputable sources of information in selecting photographs to be submitted as official documentation. Curators and archivists who specialize in photographs at state archives, libraries, colleges and universities can often offer valuable guidance. The most current information can usually be found on-line. In expanding this photo policy, the following websites were helpful:
American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works:
Professional membership organization for conservators, including specialists with photographic materials. A public guide to caring for photographs is available online. See also the “Find a Conservator” link for access to an online database of AIC members, which is a quick and easy way to find a trained photo conservator in your area.
Wilhelm Imaging Research: www.wilhelm-research.com
Henry Wilhelm is widely recognized as a leading authority on the stability and preservation of traditional and digital photographs. He conducts research on photo materials and provides consulting services to museums, archives, and commercial clients. The Wilhelm Imaging Research website includes data from permanence studies and articles by Wilhelm. This data is particularly useful when trying to determine if a particular type of photographic print will meet the National Register standards.
Manufacturers’ websites provide useful information about commercially-available products.
Eastman Kodak Company: www.kodak.com
Fujifilm USA: www.fujifilm.com
The Epson Company: www.epson.com/northarmerica.html
RLG DigiNews:
Bimonthly web-based newsletter focusing on digital imaging and practices in image conservation and digital archiving. Produced by the Department of Research of Cornell University Libraries for RLG, an international nonprofit organization of libraries, archives, and museums.
California Digital Library Digital Format Standards (2001):
Standards published by the California Digital Library at the University of California. Provides recommendations for image quality, file formats, and storage media.
Columbia University Libraries, Technical Recommendations for Digital Imaging Projects (1997):
Digital imaging recommendations prepared by the Image Quality Working Group of ArchivesCom, a joint effort of Columbia University Libraries and Academic Information Systems at Columbia University.
National Archives and Records Administration Guidance on Digital Photographic Records:
Provides guidance on digital photographic records, including images captured by digital cameras.
National Archives and Records Administration Guidance on Scanned Images of Textual Records:
Although concerned only with scanned images of textual records, this document includes guidance on digital file formats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
轉自：http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/policyexpansion.htm
Photographs submitted as official documentation to the National Register and National Historic Landmark (NR-NHL) programs are expected to last 75 years or longer before showing significant signs of fading, deterioration, or discoloration. Black-and-white prints have been required since the inception of both programs because of their superior permanence. This policy significantly expands the range of photographic media that may be submitted as official documentation. While we continue to accept conventional black and white photographs, digital images produced by methods demonstrated to meet the 75-year permanence standard are also now acceptable.
Photographic Standard
A 75-year-permanence standard is intended to ensure the longevity of NR-NHL documentation and applies to all forms of photodocumentation, including those types of photographs currently available and any introduced in the future. Black-and-white images printed on silver-emulsion fiber-based papers and black-and-white images printed on silver-emulsion resin-coated (RC) papers have been acceptable for some time. As of this writing, black-and-white prints produced from digital images that have been demonstrated to meet or exceed a 75-year permanence standard also are acceptable. The Federal government does not endorse any particular commercial product or process. A non-comprehensive list of photographic ink and paper combinations that have been demonstrated to meet the 75-year permanence standard may be found under the Digital Photographs section as guidance for implementing this policy expansion. No photos processed with chromogenic processing (C-41) or printed on chromogenic papers currently meet the established standard and are, therefore, not acceptable; however, this may change with future innovations.
Prints produced from digital photographs submitted as official documentation must be accompanied by corresponding electronic image files. Electronic image files must be saved as uncompressed .TIF (Tagged Image File format) files on CD-R media, in keeping with guidance on digital photographic records issued by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. It is recommended that digital images be saved in 8-bit (or larger) color format, which provides maximum detail even when printed in black-and-white. The file name for each electronic image saved on the CD-R must correspond with the photo log included in the nomination and the information labeled on the back of each photograph, and it should also reference the state and county in which the property is located. For example, the image files for the James Smith House in Jefferson County, Alabama, would be saved as “AL_JeffersonCounty_Smith1.tif,” “AL_JeffersonCounty_Smith2.tif,” and so forth.
In the case of a large historic district, it is optional to add the inventory number of the property to the end of the digital image file name. That number should correspond to the historic district mapping and inventory documentation. For example, for a photo depicting building #20 in the Montpelier Historic District, we would suggest: "VT_WashingtonCounty_MontpelierHD89_Property20.tif" (89 indicates that it is the 89th photo of the historic district, and 20 indicates that it is building #20 as identified in the district inventory and map).
CD-Rs submitted with a nomination must be labeled with:
* the name of the property.
* the associated multiple property documentation form (if applicable).
* the county and state where the property is located.
Basic Requirements
Labeling Photographs
Use of National Register Photographs
Guidelines for Photographic Coverage
Guidance on Implementing the Standard
Digital Photographs
Acceptable Ink and Paper Combinations For Digital Images
Photographic Technology
For Further Information
Basic Requirements
Photographs must be:
* unmounted (do not affix photographs to archival paper or any other material using staples, paper clips, glue, or other means).
* at least 3½ x 5 inches.
* properly processed and thoroughly washed.
* labeled in pencil or archival photo-labeling pen.
Photographs with adhesive labels will not be accepted. The labels will eventually deteriorate and detach from the photograph, and their acidity may cause damage. Photographs that are improperly processed or incorrectly labeled will be returned. One copy of each photograph is submitted to the National Register or the National Historic Landmarks Survey. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribal Preservation Office (TPO), or Federal Preservation Office (FPO) may require one or more additional sets of photographs; nomination preparers should consult nominating authorities to ensure compliance with all applicable standards.
Labeling Photographs
Two methods of labeling photographs are acceptable. Labeling may be done by printing in pencil (soft lead works best) or with an archival photo-labeling pen on the back of each photograph. The following information must be included:
1. Name of the property or, for districts, the name of the building or street address followed by the name of the district.
2. County and state where the property is located.
3. Name of the photographer.
4. Date of photograph.
5. Location of original negative (if film is used).
6. Description of view indicating direction of camera.
7. Photograph number. For districts, use this number to identify the vantage point on the accompanying sketch map.
An alternative method of labeling is to use a continuation sheet(s). The photographs should be labeled in the manner described above with the name of the property, county and state, and photo number (items 1, 2, and 7). Then, on a separate continuation sheet, list the remaining information (items 3-6). Information common to all photographs, such as the photographer’s name or the location of negatives, may be listed once in a statement on the continuation sheet.
Use of National Register Photographs
By allowing a photograph to be submitted as official documentation, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for print and electronic publication and other purposes, including but not limited to duplication, display, distribution, study, publicity, and audiovisual presentations.
Guidelines for Photographic Coverage
Photographs submitted to the National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic Landmarks Survey as official documentation should be clear, well-composed, and provide an accurate visual representation of the property and its significant features. They must illustrate the qualities discussed in the description and statement of significance. Photographs should show historically significant features and also any alterations that have affected the property’s historic integrity.
The necessary number of photographic views depends on the size and complexity of the property. Submit as many photographs as needed to depict the current condition and significant features of the property. A few photographs may be sufficient to document a single building or object. Larger, more complex properties and historic districts will require a number of photos. Prints of historic photographs may supplement photodocumentation and be particularly useful in illustrating changes that have occurred over time.
Buildings, structures, and objects:
* Submit photographs showing the principal facades and the setting in which the property is located.
* Additions, alterations, intrusions, and dependencies should appear in the photographs.
* Include views of interiors, outbuildings, landscaping, or unusual features if they contribute to the significance of the property.
Historic and archeological sites:
* Submit photographs showing the condition of the site and any above-ground or surface features and disturbances.
* If relevant to the evaluation of significance, include drawings or photographs illustrating artifacts that have been removed from the site.
* At least one photograph must show the physical environment and topography of the site.
Architectural and Historic Districts:
* Submit photographs showing major building types and styles, pivotal buildings and structures, and representative noncontributing resources.
* Streetscapes and landscapes are recommended. Aerial views may also be useful. Views of significant topographic features and spatial elements should also be submitted.
* Views of individual buildings are not necessary if streetscape views clearly illustrate the significant historical and architectural qualities of the district.
* Key all photographs to the sketch map for the district.
Archeological Districts:
* Submit photographs of the principal sites and site types within the district following the guidelines for archaeological sites (see above).
Guidance on Implementing the Standard
Black-and-white prints have been required since the inception of both the National Register and National Historic Landmarks programs because of their superior permanence. The longevity of a photograph depends on the materials and processing methods used and the conditions under which it is stored. The NR-NHL collections are maintained at the National Park Service offices in Washington, D.C., and are stored under climate-controlled conditions. Each nomination is placed in an acid-free file folder, with photographs stored in a separate acid-free sleeve. The conditions under which nominations are stored are designed for archival longevity. To make certain that nominations last as long as possible, it is essential that nomination preparers and nominating authorities submit photographs that meet the NR-NHL standards. Ensuring the longevity of official documentation, including photographs, is essential for the administration of federal historic preservation programs. In addition to the regulatory protections and grants and tax incentives available under federal law to properties listed in the National Register or as National Historic Landmarks, the nomination files for these programs constitute an irreplaceable archive of American history.
When the National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey were established, black-and-white prints were generally made using silver-emulsion fiber-based paper, which has outstanding archival stability. If stored under proper conditions, black-and-white prints on fiber-based paper will easily last 150 years or more. In the late 1970s, resin-coated (RC) papers became popular because of their lower cost and ease of processing. Use of fiber-based papers consequently became limited to specialized applications. In response to these changes, the National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey began accepting photographs printed on RC paper in the early 1980s. The limitations of this policy became clear in recent years with the advent of digital photography, the introduction of black-and-white films that can be developed and printed using color (C-41) processing, and the declining use of conventional black-and-white photography. The use of the 75-year permanence standard for all forms of photo documentation, no matter what methods are used to produce the photographs in question, ensures that the photo policy will continue to be applicable as manufacturers introduce new products and discontinue others. It provides a basis for evaluating all currently available photographic materials and those introduced in the future.
Nominating authorities and nomination preparers are advised that manufacturers’ claims may sometimes overstate the expected longevity of products. In some cases, nominating authorities may be required to provide verifiable information referencing tests conducted by an independent laboratory to demonstrate that the prints in question meet the 75-year permanence standard. This does not mean that nominating authorities will be expected to contract with independent laboratories to test photographic materials or required to submit test data with each nomination. It may, however, be necessary to research the expected permanency of photographs when evaluating new photographic materials or processing methods. Nominating authorities are advised to consult the sources included in the For Further Information section to identify photographic materials and processing methods that meet the 75-year permanence standard. Other valuable sources of guidance include curators and archivists who specialize in photographs at state archives, libraries, and colleges and universities. In addition, manufacturers sometimes make available results of independent testing.
Nominating authorities and nomination preparers should also be aware that the proliferation of so-called “archival” products has made it difficult to identify products that meet the NR-NHL documentation standards. No firm, universally acceptable definition of archival exists, and many manufacturers now use the term for marketing purposes. In some instances, products labeled archival will last considerably longer than non-archival products but may not meet the NR-NHL standards. Independent testing has shown that some popular photographic papers marketed as archival, for example, will begin deteriorating in far less than 75 years and therefore cannot be accepted as official documentation. Therefore, archival products should not be accepted at face value but only if they meet the NR-NHL documentation standards.
Digital Photographs
Several options are available for nominating authorities who wish to submit photographic prints produced from digital images. Consulting a photo lab in your area that offers professional services is a good starting point. A number of commercial processing methods produce high-quality prints from digital images that meet the NR-NHL standards. If digital services that produce acceptable images at reasonable cost are locally available, this may prove satisfactory for many nominating authorities.
Another option is to produce prints in-house with an inkjet or dye-sublimation photo printer that can use special archival inks and photo papers. While most photo printers made for the consumer market are designed to produce color prints that last only a few years before fading, a number of manufacturers now offer models which, with the correct inks and papers, can produce prints with an expected lifespan comparable to or better than traditional black-and-white prints on RC paper. These printers can be obtained at reasonable cost. Producing photographic prints in-house may result in long-term cost savings and also offers the important advantage of providing control over the imaging process.
Acceptable Ink and Paper Combinations For Digital Images
The non-comprehensive list below includes products that meet the NR-NHL permanence standard. Specific printers are not identified, as the longevity of a print is dependent on the ink and paper combinations used to produce it, rather than on the printer.
Epson UltraChrome pigmented inks
Epson Premium Glossy Paper
Epson Premium Semigloss Photo Paper
Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper
Epson Premium Semimatte Photo Paper
Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper
Somerset Velvet for Epson
Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper
Epson Textured Fine Art Paper
Epson Enhanced Matte Paper
Epson Picture Mate inks Epson PictureMate Photo Paper
Hewlett-Packard (HP) 84/85 dye-based inkset
HP Premium Plus Photo and Proofing Gloss
HP Premium Plus High Gloss Photo Paper
HP Premium Plus Soft Gloss Photo Paper
HP Premium Photo Paper, Gloss
HP Premium Photo Paper, Soft Gloss
Hewlett-Packard 59 gray photo cartridge HP Premium Plus and HP Premium Photo Papers (high gloss, glossy, and soft gloss)
Hewlett-Packard 100 gray photo cartridge HP Premium Plus and HP Premium Photo Papers (high gloss, glossy, and soft gloss)
Hewlett-Packard Vivera inks (95 and 97 tri-color cartridges)
HP Premium Plus and HP Premium Photo Papers (high gloss, glossy, and soft gloss)
Photographic Technology
The following information about basic types of photographic materials and processing methods is intended to help nominating authorities and nomination preparers obtain photographs that meet the NR-NHL standards. It addresses questions about currently available products and commonly used terms that have compounded the difficulty of obtaining acceptable photographs. While not comprehensive, this guidance provides information for making informed choices among the vast range of products available in the photographic marketplace.
The new technologies and photographic materials introduced in recent years have produced the most dramatic changes in photography since the advent of color films and printing papers in the 1960s. One consequence of these changes is the reduced availability of conventional black-and-white films, papers, and processing. In many cases, photographic labs capable of producing high-quality black-and-white photographs can be found only in major metropolitan areas. Declining demand for traditional black-and-white photography has resulted in significantly higher costs, which places an added burden on nominating authorities and nomination preparers. At the same time, improvements in digital technology have resulted in the availability of black-and-white prints that can be obtained at reasonable cost and meet the NR-NHL documentation standards.
Much of the recent confusion faced by nominating authorities and nomination preparers stems from the introduction of chromogenic black-and-white films, which share more similarities with color films than traditional black-and-white films. Chromogenic black-and-white films, produced by manufacturers such as Kodak and Illford, are processed and printed using C-41 processing, the method most commonly used for color photographs. Unlike traditional black-and-white films, the silver-halide crystals in the emulsion layer of a chromogenic film are replaced with dyes during the developing process, in the same way that occurs in processing color film. Chromogenic black-and-white films, which can be developed at one-hour photo labs and similar facilities, make it possible for photographers to obtain black-and-white prints quickly and at low cost. The longevity of these prints, however, tends to be poor. Because they are produced with color developing and processing methods and are printed on color paper, they are essentially color photographs. As a result, they do not meet the NR-NHL standards.
Like conventional photographs, the longevity of prints made with digital imaging technology depends largely on the materials and ink used. Improvements in technology and growing demand for digital prints have led manufacturers to introduce new photo papers, inks, and printing systems, and it is now possible to obtain photographs made from digital images that equal or surpass the longevity of conventional black-and-white photographs on RC paper. Prints made from digital images are available from photo labs that offer digital services or can be produced using printers and photo materials widely available to consumers. Available types of digital printing papers include versions similar to traditional RC and fiber-based black-and-white papers. As with conventional photographic materials, the National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey recommend that nominating authorities conduct careful research and check manufacturers’ claims against independent laboratory testing before selecting digital photo products.
For Further Information
Because of continual changes in photographic technology, determining the longevity of photographic materials will continue to be challenging. The National Register and National Historic Landmarks Survey cannot undertake detailed study of new products as they become available. SHPOs, FPOs, and TPOs are encouraged to bring new imaging technologies that appear to meet the NR-NHL documentation standards to the attention of the NR-NHL staff. Nominating authorities and nomination preparers are encouraged to consult reputable sources of information in selecting photographs to be submitted as official documentation. Curators and archivists who specialize in photographs at state archives, libraries, colleges and universities can often offer valuable guidance. The most current information can usually be found on-line. In expanding this photo policy, the following websites were helpful:
American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works:
Professional membership organization for conservators, including specialists with photographic materials. A public guide to caring for photographs is available online. See also the “Find a Conservator” link for access to an online database of AIC members, which is a quick and easy way to find a trained photo conservator in your area.
Wilhelm Imaging Research: www.wilhelm-research.com
Henry Wilhelm is widely recognized as a leading authority on the stability and preservation of traditional and digital photographs. He conducts research on photo materials and provides consulting services to museums, archives, and commercial clients. The Wilhelm Imaging Research website includes data from permanence studies and articles by Wilhelm. This data is particularly useful when trying to determine if a particular type of photographic print will meet the National Register standards.
Manufacturers’ websites provide useful information about commercially-available products.
Eastman Kodak Company: www.kodak.com
Fujifilm USA: www.fujifilm.com
The Epson Company: www.epson.com/northarmerica.html
RLG DigiNews:
Bimonthly web-based newsletter focusing on digital imaging and practices in image conservation and digital archiving. Produced by the Department of Research of Cornell University Libraries for RLG, an international nonprofit organization of libraries, archives, and museums.
California Digital Library Digital Format Standards (2001):
Standards published by the California Digital Library at the University of California. Provides recommendations for image quality, file formats, and storage media.
Columbia University Libraries, Technical Recommendations for Digital Imaging Projects (1997):
Digital imaging recommendations prepared by the Image Quality Working Group of ArchivesCom, a joint effort of Columbia University Libraries and Academic Information Systems at Columbia University.
National Archives and Records Administration Guidance on Digital Photographic Records:
Provides guidance on digital photographic records, including images captured by digital cameras.
National Archives and Records Administration Guidance on Scanned Images of Textual Records:
Although concerned only with scanned images of textual records, this document includes guidance on digital file formats.
【轉】CARING FOR YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS
轉自
http://aic.stanford.edu/library/online/brochures/photos.html
非常仔細的介紹如何保存新舊照片。
另外還可以參考這些links:
Photographic Material Group:
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/pmg/index.html
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/pmg/coatings.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We often use the word photograph when referring to the positive image on paper that is a familiar fixture in our daily lives. In reality, a photograph can be one of many processes in which light-sensitive media are employed to create a visible image. The prevalence of photographs allows us to forget that they are potentially fragile objects that can be easily damaged by careless handling, improper storage, and exposure to environmental influences such as light, humidity, and temperature.
In caring for a photographic collection, it is important to know that various components create a photograph. The interaction of these components, with each other and with their environment, has a lasting effect on the longevity of the image. Most photographs consist of a final image material, a binder layer, and a primary support. The final image material - commonly silver, platinum, organic dyes, or pigments creates the image we see. The binder layer is a transparent substance albumen, collodion, or gelatin in which the final image layer is suspended. The binder and final image material are applied to a primary support, usually paper, glass, metal, or plastic. Although many photographs have this three-part structure, individual images may have additional components. For instance, applied color or coatings and original frames or cases need to be considered as part of the photographic object.
MAINTAINING A SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT
Photographic materials require a cool, dry, well-ventilated storage environment. High temperature and relative humidity increase deterioration and promote the growth of mold and mildew, which could mar surfaces and break down binder layers. Avoid storing photographs in the attic, the basement, or along the outside walls of a building, where environmental conditions are more prone to extremes and fluctuations and where condensation may occur. In some storage situations, seasonal adjustments such as dehumidifiers in the summer or fans to promote air circulation may be necessary to improve problematic environmental conditions.
The ideal storage conditions for most photographs are a temperature of 68 F and relative humidity in the range of 30 - 40%. Film-based negatives and contemporary color photographs benefit from storage in cooler environments of 30 - 40 F and 30 - 40% relative humidity.
CHOOSING STORAGE ENCLOSURES
Keep photographic materials in enclosures that protect them from dust and light and provide physical support during use. Chemically stable plastic or paper enclosures, free of sulfur, acids, and peroxides, are recommended. Plastic sleeves should be constructed of uncoated polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene. For most photographic materials, unbuffered paper enclosures are preferred over buffered enclosures. Alkaline buffering is added to archival storage papers to absorb acidity from the stored material or the environment surrounding it. However, some photographs may be altered by the buffering in alkaline papers, so unbuffered paper is recommended for most processes. Film-based negatives, which can produce acidic gasses as they age, should be placed in archival, buffered enclosures and stored separately from other photographic materials. Store cased objects, such as daguerreotypes and ambrotypes, in their original cases or frames with the addition of custom-made, four-flap paper enclosures to reduce wear and tear on fragile cases. Place individually housed prints, negatives, and cased objects in acid-free, durable boxes that will afford further protection from light, dust, and potential environmental fluctuations.
The storage of photographs in albums serves the dual purpose of organizing groups of images while protecting them from physical and environmental damage. Albums can be wonderful sources of historic and genealogical information. Preserve them intact when possible and store them in custom-fitted archival boxes. For the storage of family photographs, albums constructed with archival materials are available from conservation suppliers. Magnetic or self-adhesive albums can be detrimental to photographs and should not be used.
DISPLAYING PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs should be protected from extended exposure to intense light sources. Limit exhibition times, control light exposure, and monitor the condition of the photographs carefully. Prolonged or permanent display of photographs is not recommended. It is important to note that a microenvironment is created when a photograph is placed in a frame for exhibition. Use unbuffered ragboard mats, and frame photographs with archivally sound materials. Use ultraviolet filtering plexiglass to help protect the photographs during light exposure. Reproduce vulnerable or unique images and display the duplicate image; in this way, the original photograph can be properly stored and preserved.
HOUSEKEEPING GUIDELINES
An overlooked area of collection maintenance is keeping the areas where photographs are handled or stored clean and pest-free. Paper fibers, albumen, and gelatin binders are just some of the components in photographic materials that provide an attractive food source for insects and rodents. It is vital that collections areas be free of debris that might encourage pests. Food and beverages should not be allowed. Apart from the potential for attracting pests, accidental spills can irreversibly damage most photographic objects.
HANDLING PROCEDURES
Most damage to photographs results from poor handling. A well-organized and properly housed collection promotes respect for the photographs and appropriate care in handling. When images can be located quickly, there is less possibility of physical damage. The enclosures should be designed in relation to the intended use of the photographs, as well as their type and condition.
Establish handling procedures and adhere to them whenever photographs are being used. View photographs in a clean, uncluttered area, and handle them with clean hands. Wear white cotton gloves to lessen the possibility of leaving fingerprints and soiling the materials; however, gloves may reduce the manual dexterity of the user. Support photographs carefully and hold them with both hands to avoid damage. Keep photographs covered when they are not being viewed immediately. Do not use ink pens around photographic materials. Mark enclosures with pencil only. If it is necessary to mark a photograph, write lightly with a soft lead pencil on the reverse of the image.
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Disaster preparedness begins by evaluating the storage location and the potential for damage in the event of a fire, flood, or other emergency. It is important to create a disaster preparedness plan that addresses the specific needs of the collection before a disaster occurs.
The location and manner in which photographs are housed can be the first line of defense. Identify photographic materials that are at higher risk of damage or loss. Remove all potentially damaging materials such as paper clips and poor-quality enclosures. Store negatives and prints in separate locations to increase the possibility of an image surviving a catastrophe. If a disaster occurs, stay calm. If possible, protect the collection from damage by covering it with plastic sheeting and/or removing it from the affected area. Evaluate the situation and document the damage that has occurred. Contact a conservator as soon as possible for assistance and advice on the recovery and repair of damaged materials.
COMMON CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS
The following problems are commonly encountered in photographic collections:
Broken, torn, or cracked photographs: If the primary support of a photograph sustains serious damage, place it carefully in a polyester sleeve with an archival board support. If a photograph has a flaking binder layer or friable surface treatments, such as the pastel coloring often seen on crayon enlargements, place it in a shallow box, not a polyester sleeve. Do not use pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes to repair torn photographs. Consult a photographic materials conservator to perform repairs.
Soiled photographs or negatives: Brush soiled photographs carefully with a clean, soft brush. Proceed from the center of the photograph outward toward the edges. Do not attempt to clean photographs with water- or solvent-based cleaners, such as window cleaner or film cleaner. Improper cleaning of photographic materials can cause serious and often irreversible damage, such as permanent staining, abrasion, alteration, or loss of binder and image.
Photographs or negatives adhered to enclosures: High-humidity environments or direct exposure to liquids can cause photographs to adhere to frame glass or enclosure materials. This is a very difficult problem to resolve, and great care must be taken to reduce the possibility of further damage. If a photograph becomes attached to adjacent materials, consult a photographic materials conservator before attempting to remove the adhered materials.
Deteriorated negatives: Chemical instability is a major factor in the deterioration of early film-based materials. If film-based negatives are brittle, discolored, sticky, or appear wavy and full of air bubbles, separate the negatives from the rest of the collection and consult a photographic materials conservator. A conservator will be able to help identify these materials and make recommendations for their safe storage and/or duplication.
Broken glass negatives or ambrotypes: Place broken glass carefully in archival paper enclosures. Use a separate, clearly marked enclosure for each piece to reduce the possibility of scratching or further damage. For long-term storage, construct a custom sink mat that holds the pieces of broken glass, separated by mat-board shims, in one enclosure. Consult a photographic materials conservator for assistance.
RESOURCES
Baldwin, Gordon.Looking at Photographs. Malibu, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1991.
Fortson, Judith. Disaster Planning and Recovery: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians and Archivists. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Martin, Elizabeth. Collecting and Preserving Old Photographs. London: William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd., 1988.
Porro, Jennifer, ed. Photographic Preservation and the Research Library. Mountain View, CA: Research Libraries Group, Inc.
Reilly, James. Care and Identification of Nineteenth-Century Photographic Prints. Kodak Publication G-2S. Rochester, NY: Eastman Kodak Co., 1986.
Schultz, Arthur W., ed. Caring for Your Collections. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1992.
This brochure is provided courtesy of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), the national membership organization of conservation professionals dedicated to preserving the art and historic artifacts of our cultural heritage for future generations. Among the other educational services of the Foundation of the AIC is the Conservation Services Referral System, which provides a free list of conservators in your geographic region. The AIC brochure Guidelines for Selecting a Conservator, will help you make an informed choice.
The recommendations in this brochure are intended as guidance only, and AIC does not assume responsibility or liability.
Prepared by Deborah Derby with assistance from M. Susan Barger, Nora Kennedy, and Carol Turchan, 1997
http://aic.stanford.edu/library/online/brochures/photos.html
非常仔細的介紹如何保存新舊照片。
另外還可以參考這些links:
Photographic Material Group:
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/pmg/index.html
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/pmg/coatings.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We often use the word photograph when referring to the positive image on paper that is a familiar fixture in our daily lives. In reality, a photograph can be one of many processes in which light-sensitive media are employed to create a visible image. The prevalence of photographs allows us to forget that they are potentially fragile objects that can be easily damaged by careless handling, improper storage, and exposure to environmental influences such as light, humidity, and temperature.
In caring for a photographic collection, it is important to know that various components create a photograph. The interaction of these components, with each other and with their environment, has a lasting effect on the longevity of the image. Most photographs consist of a final image material, a binder layer, and a primary support. The final image material - commonly silver, platinum, organic dyes, or pigments creates the image we see. The binder layer is a transparent substance albumen, collodion, or gelatin in which the final image layer is suspended. The binder and final image material are applied to a primary support, usually paper, glass, metal, or plastic. Although many photographs have this three-part structure, individual images may have additional components. For instance, applied color or coatings and original frames or cases need to be considered as part of the photographic object.
MAINTAINING A SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT
Photographic materials require a cool, dry, well-ventilated storage environment. High temperature and relative humidity increase deterioration and promote the growth of mold and mildew, which could mar surfaces and break down binder layers. Avoid storing photographs in the attic, the basement, or along the outside walls of a building, where environmental conditions are more prone to extremes and fluctuations and where condensation may occur. In some storage situations, seasonal adjustments such as dehumidifiers in the summer or fans to promote air circulation may be necessary to improve problematic environmental conditions.
The ideal storage conditions for most photographs are a temperature of 68 F and relative humidity in the range of 30 - 40%. Film-based negatives and contemporary color photographs benefit from storage in cooler environments of 30 - 40 F and 30 - 40% relative humidity.
CHOOSING STORAGE ENCLOSURES
Keep photographic materials in enclosures that protect them from dust and light and provide physical support during use. Chemically stable plastic or paper enclosures, free of sulfur, acids, and peroxides, are recommended. Plastic sleeves should be constructed of uncoated polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene. For most photographic materials, unbuffered paper enclosures are preferred over buffered enclosures. Alkaline buffering is added to archival storage papers to absorb acidity from the stored material or the environment surrounding it. However, some photographs may be altered by the buffering in alkaline papers, so unbuffered paper is recommended for most processes. Film-based negatives, which can produce acidic gasses as they age, should be placed in archival, buffered enclosures and stored separately from other photographic materials. Store cased objects, such as daguerreotypes and ambrotypes, in their original cases or frames with the addition of custom-made, four-flap paper enclosures to reduce wear and tear on fragile cases. Place individually housed prints, negatives, and cased objects in acid-free, durable boxes that will afford further protection from light, dust, and potential environmental fluctuations.
The storage of photographs in albums serves the dual purpose of organizing groups of images while protecting them from physical and environmental damage. Albums can be wonderful sources of historic and genealogical information. Preserve them intact when possible and store them in custom-fitted archival boxes. For the storage of family photographs, albums constructed with archival materials are available from conservation suppliers. Magnetic or self-adhesive albums can be detrimental to photographs and should not be used.
DISPLAYING PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs should be protected from extended exposure to intense light sources. Limit exhibition times, control light exposure, and monitor the condition of the photographs carefully. Prolonged or permanent display of photographs is not recommended. It is important to note that a microenvironment is created when a photograph is placed in a frame for exhibition. Use unbuffered ragboard mats, and frame photographs with archivally sound materials. Use ultraviolet filtering plexiglass to help protect the photographs during light exposure. Reproduce vulnerable or unique images and display the duplicate image; in this way, the original photograph can be properly stored and preserved.
HOUSEKEEPING GUIDELINES
An overlooked area of collection maintenance is keeping the areas where photographs are handled or stored clean and pest-free. Paper fibers, albumen, and gelatin binders are just some of the components in photographic materials that provide an attractive food source for insects and rodents. It is vital that collections areas be free of debris that might encourage pests. Food and beverages should not be allowed. Apart from the potential for attracting pests, accidental spills can irreversibly damage most photographic objects.
HANDLING PROCEDURES
Most damage to photographs results from poor handling. A well-organized and properly housed collection promotes respect for the photographs and appropriate care in handling. When images can be located quickly, there is less possibility of physical damage. The enclosures should be designed in relation to the intended use of the photographs, as well as their type and condition.
Establish handling procedures and adhere to them whenever photographs are being used. View photographs in a clean, uncluttered area, and handle them with clean hands. Wear white cotton gloves to lessen the possibility of leaving fingerprints and soiling the materials; however, gloves may reduce the manual dexterity of the user. Support photographs carefully and hold them with both hands to avoid damage. Keep photographs covered when they are not being viewed immediately. Do not use ink pens around photographic materials. Mark enclosures with pencil only. If it is necessary to mark a photograph, write lightly with a soft lead pencil on the reverse of the image.
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Disaster preparedness begins by evaluating the storage location and the potential for damage in the event of a fire, flood, or other emergency. It is important to create a disaster preparedness plan that addresses the specific needs of the collection before a disaster occurs.
The location and manner in which photographs are housed can be the first line of defense. Identify photographic materials that are at higher risk of damage or loss. Remove all potentially damaging materials such as paper clips and poor-quality enclosures. Store negatives and prints in separate locations to increase the possibility of an image surviving a catastrophe. If a disaster occurs, stay calm. If possible, protect the collection from damage by covering it with plastic sheeting and/or removing it from the affected area. Evaluate the situation and document the damage that has occurred. Contact a conservator as soon as possible for assistance and advice on the recovery and repair of damaged materials.
COMMON CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS
The following problems are commonly encountered in photographic collections:
Broken, torn, or cracked photographs: If the primary support of a photograph sustains serious damage, place it carefully in a polyester sleeve with an archival board support. If a photograph has a flaking binder layer or friable surface treatments, such as the pastel coloring often seen on crayon enlargements, place it in a shallow box, not a polyester sleeve. Do not use pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes to repair torn photographs. Consult a photographic materials conservator to perform repairs.
Soiled photographs or negatives: Brush soiled photographs carefully with a clean, soft brush. Proceed from the center of the photograph outward toward the edges. Do not attempt to clean photographs with water- or solvent-based cleaners, such as window cleaner or film cleaner. Improper cleaning of photographic materials can cause serious and often irreversible damage, such as permanent staining, abrasion, alteration, or loss of binder and image.
Photographs or negatives adhered to enclosures: High-humidity environments or direct exposure to liquids can cause photographs to adhere to frame glass or enclosure materials. This is a very difficult problem to resolve, and great care must be taken to reduce the possibility of further damage. If a photograph becomes attached to adjacent materials, consult a photographic materials conservator before attempting to remove the adhered materials.
Deteriorated negatives: Chemical instability is a major factor in the deterioration of early film-based materials. If film-based negatives are brittle, discolored, sticky, or appear wavy and full of air bubbles, separate the negatives from the rest of the collection and consult a photographic materials conservator. A conservator will be able to help identify these materials and make recommendations for their safe storage and/or duplication.
Broken glass negatives or ambrotypes: Place broken glass carefully in archival paper enclosures. Use a separate, clearly marked enclosure for each piece to reduce the possibility of scratching or further damage. For long-term storage, construct a custom sink mat that holds the pieces of broken glass, separated by mat-board shims, in one enclosure. Consult a photographic materials conservator for assistance.
RESOURCES
Baldwin, Gordon.Looking at Photographs. Malibu, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1991.
Fortson, Judith. Disaster Planning and Recovery: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians and Archivists. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Martin, Elizabeth. Collecting and Preserving Old Photographs. London: William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd., 1988.
Porro, Jennifer, ed. Photographic Preservation and the Research Library. Mountain View, CA: Research Libraries Group, Inc.
Reilly, James. Care and Identification of Nineteenth-Century Photographic Prints. Kodak Publication G-2S. Rochester, NY: Eastman Kodak Co., 1986.
Schultz, Arthur W., ed. Caring for Your Collections. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1992.
This brochure is provided courtesy of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), the national membership organization of conservation professionals dedicated to preserving the art and historic artifacts of our cultural heritage for future generations. Among the other educational services of the Foundation of the AIC is the Conservation Services Referral System, which provides a free list of conservators in your geographic region. The AIC brochure Guidelines for Selecting a Conservator, will help you make an informed choice.
The recommendations in this brochure are intended as guidance only, and AIC does not assume responsibility or liability.
Prepared by Deborah Derby with assistance from M. Susan Barger, Nora Kennedy, and Carol Turchan, 1997
【轉】As bodies recovered, reporters are told 'no photos, no stories'
文章轉自：San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/13/MNG3HEMQHG1.DTL
Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
(09-13) 04:00 PDT New Orleans -- A long caravan of white vans led by an Army humvee rolled Monday through New Orleans' Bywater district, a poor, mostly black neighborhood, northeast of the French Quarter.
Recovery team members wearing white protective suits and black boots stopped at houses with spray painted markings on the doors designating there were dead bodies inside.
Outside one house on Kentucky Street, a member of the Army 82nd Airborne Division summoned a reporter and photographer standing nearby and told them that if they took pictures or wrote a story about the body recovery process, he would take away their press credentials and kick them out of the state.
"No photos. No stories," said the man, wearing camouflage fatigues and a red beret.
On Saturday, after being challenged in court by CNN, the Bush administration agreed not to prevent the news media from following the effort to recover the bodies of Hurricane Katrina victims.
But on Monday, in the Bywater district, that assurance wasn't being followed. The 82nd Airborne soldier told reporters the Army had a policy that requires media to be 300 meters -- more than three football fields in length -- away from the scene of body recoveries in New Orleans. If reporters wrote stories or took pictures of body recoveries, they would be reported and face consequences, he said, including a loss of access for up-close coverage of certain military operations.
Dean Nugent, of the Louisiana State Coroner's Department, who accompanied the soldier, added that it wasn't safe to be in Bywater. "They'll kill you out here," he said, referring to the few residents who have continued to defy mandatory evacuation orders and remain in their homes."
"The cockroaches come out at night," he said of the residents. "This is one of the worst places in the country. You should not be here. Especially you," he told a female reporter.
Nugent, who is white, acknowledged he wasn't personally familiar with the poor, black neighborhood, saying he only knew of it by reputation.
Later Monday, the recovery team collected a body from a green house on St. Anthony Street in nearby Seventh Ward. The dead man, who was slipped into a black body bag and carried out to one of the white vans, had been lying alone on the living room floor for nearly two weeks, neighbors said.
"I told them weeks ago he was in there," said Barry Dominguez, 39, who lives across the street and has refused to leave the neighborhood he grew up in.
After the recovery team took away the St. Anthony Street body, two workers urinated on the side of a neighbor's house.
The CNN suit was in response to comments Friday at a news conference in which officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency said members of the news media would not be allowed to witness the recovery of hurricane victims' bodies.
Terry Ebbert, New Orleans' homeland security director, had said Friday that the recovery effort would be done with dignity, "meaning that there would be no press allowed." Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore later said there would be zero access to the recovery operation.
During a hearing Saturday morning in U.S. District Court in Houston, a lawyer who represented the government said FEMA had revised its previous plans to limit coverage.
Government agencies may still refuse requests from members of the media to ride along, or be "embedded," on recovery boats as crews gather the dead. "But, to the extent the press can go out to the locations, they're free to do that," said Keith Wyatt, an assistant U.S. attorney, according to a transcript of the hearing. "They're free to take whatever pictures they can take."
Army Lt. Col. Richard Steele said the government's position as explained in court Saturday didn't represent a change in policy. Reporters can watch recovery efforts they come upon, but they won't be embedded with search teams.
"We're not going to bar, impede or prevent" the media from telling the story, he said. "We're just not going to give the media a ride."
Chronicle news services contributed to this report. E-mail Cecilia Vega at cvega@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/13/MNG3HEMQHG1.DTL
Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
(09-13) 04:00 PDT New Orleans -- A long caravan of white vans led by an Army humvee rolled Monday through New Orleans' Bywater district, a poor, mostly black neighborhood, northeast of the French Quarter.
Recovery team members wearing white protective suits and black boots stopped at houses with spray painted markings on the doors designating there were dead bodies inside.
Outside one house on Kentucky Street, a member of the Army 82nd Airborne Division summoned a reporter and photographer standing nearby and told them that if they took pictures or wrote a story about the body recovery process, he would take away their press credentials and kick them out of the state.
"No photos. No stories," said the man, wearing camouflage fatigues and a red beret.
On Saturday, after being challenged in court by CNN, the Bush administration agreed not to prevent the news media from following the effort to recover the bodies of Hurricane Katrina victims.
But on Monday, in the Bywater district, that assurance wasn't being followed. The 82nd Airborne soldier told reporters the Army had a policy that requires media to be 300 meters -- more than three football fields in length -- away from the scene of body recoveries in New Orleans. If reporters wrote stories or took pictures of body recoveries, they would be reported and face consequences, he said, including a loss of access for up-close coverage of certain military operations.
Dean Nugent, of the Louisiana State Coroner's Department, who accompanied the soldier, added that it wasn't safe to be in Bywater. "They'll kill you out here," he said, referring to the few residents who have continued to defy mandatory evacuation orders and remain in their homes."
"The cockroaches come out at night," he said of the residents. "This is one of the worst places in the country. You should not be here. Especially you," he told a female reporter.
Nugent, who is white, acknowledged he wasn't personally familiar with the poor, black neighborhood, saying he only knew of it by reputation.
Later Monday, the recovery team collected a body from a green house on St. Anthony Street in nearby Seventh Ward. The dead man, who was slipped into a black body bag and carried out to one of the white vans, had been lying alone on the living room floor for nearly two weeks, neighbors said.
"I told them weeks ago he was in there," said Barry Dominguez, 39, who lives across the street and has refused to leave the neighborhood he grew up in.
After the recovery team took away the St. Anthony Street body, two workers urinated on the side of a neighbor's house.
The CNN suit was in response to comments Friday at a news conference in which officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency said members of the news media would not be allowed to witness the recovery of hurricane victims' bodies.
Terry Ebbert, New Orleans' homeland security director, had said Friday that the recovery effort would be done with dignity, "meaning that there would be no press allowed." Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore later said there would be zero access to the recovery operation.
During a hearing Saturday morning in U.S. District Court in Houston, a lawyer who represented the government said FEMA had revised its previous plans to limit coverage.
Government agencies may still refuse requests from members of the media to ride along, or be "embedded," on recovery boats as crews gather the dead. "But, to the extent the press can go out to the locations, they're free to do that," said Keith Wyatt, an assistant U.S. attorney, according to a transcript of the hearing. "They're free to take whatever pictures they can take."
Army Lt. Col. Richard Steele said the government's position as explained in court Saturday didn't represent a change in policy. Reporters can watch recovery efforts they come upon, but they won't be embedded with search teams.
"We're not going to bar, impede or prevent" the media from telling the story, he said. "We're just not going to give the media a ride."
Chronicle news services contributed to this report. E-mail Cecilia Vega at cvega@sfchronicle.com.
October 28, 2006
【轉】Shooting the War
轉自紐約公共電台ＷＮＹＣ：http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_041103_shooting.html
有興趣聽的人請到：http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram.py?file=raotm/otm041103.ra&start=%2238:33.7%22&end=%2242:37.2%22ｇ。 線上收聽
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
April 11, 2003
BOB GARFIELD: Tony, thank you very much!
ANTHONY SUAU: Thank you.
BOB GARFIELD: For the past 20 years, photojournalist Anthony Suau has covered virtually every major war, but this time he decided to remain on the home front covering rallies and funerals and community events. It's a vantage point that he thought might be just as if not more interesting than the deserts of Iraq. Anthony, welcome to OTM.
ANTHONY SUAU: Thank you.
BOB GARFIELD: This must be a very strange experience for you. As a consumer of war photography - not a producer of it - what is it like for you to be on the other end of the transaction?
ANTHONY SUAU: It's a very interesting sensation. It's easy to see that there's a sort of editing process going on between the photographer and the viewer, and there are many things, I think, affecting that editing process, part of it being that the American public doesn't really want to see certain types of images; they're very sensitive at the moment.
BOB GARFIELD:Well one thing we have seen very little of is blood. Very little civilians or soldiers in agony and certainly very few photographs of dead Iraqis. Where are those pictures?
ANTHONY SUAU: Certainly they exist. I think as a photographer when you're there, it's very emotional and it's, it's overwhelming and kind of as a knee jerk reaction you immediately photograph. The grotesque, gruesome situations are a fundamental reality of war, and if you happen to be there as a photographer, you see that over and over and over again. I do think that the Americans are living in a cocoon about that, and they don't see it, and that's somewhat tragic.
BOB GARFIELD:Do you exercise a sort of self-censorship on the battlefield or in the war zone knowing that certain categories of photograph are just not going to be chosen by a photo editor or a, or a managing editor?
ANTHONY SUAU: No, I don't. I-- and I don't think I've -I've ever seen a photographer that does. I think that when you get into a situation that is-- particularly gruesome -- for example, I remember some very gruesome situations in Haiti -- I remember in Rwanda as well - you don't censor - you feel an, an almost human and moral obligation to really make a document of that - that how atrocious man can be to himself. And you don't really care whether they're published initially or not. However, when you are in that situation, you do know that you can turn off the viewer. The magazine can reject it for that reason. And your interests are to relate to the world what is in front of you - what you're seeing, and so I do think that if the photographer uses his skills, he can look at what would be a gruesome situation and photograph it in a way that maybe won't turn off the viewer, but also get the point across at the same time -- to somehow elude those editors by being more clever than the filter.
BOB GARFIELD:It must be a frustrating thing, because you -as a photographer in a war zone - are taking many, many images, knowing that decisions are being made -- in this case thousands of miles away -- which will inform readers' understanding of the reality on the ground.
ANTHONY SUAU: It's frustrating. It's enormously frustrating. The reality is, though, that those images that you feel are important usually find their way into some sort of publication. I mean I think the immediacy of photography -- it's not its place any more. That's the place of television. We see immediately what's happening across the desert of Iraq on television. Why do I need to duplicate that into a still image? The still photographer needs to use his head to photograph the situation in front of him in a way that can transcend time. That photograph will only be a part of history if it sustains a certain period of time and has second and third and fourth and fifth publications and so on and so on and can live 20 or 30 years down the road and say well that was really what that event was like.
BOB GARFIELD: Anthony Suau is a contract photographer for Time Magazine; he's covered this war, for a change, from the home front.
copyright 2003 WNYC Radio
有興趣聽的人請到：http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram.py?file=raotm/otm041103.ra&start=%2238:33.7%22&end=%2242:37.2%22ｇ。 線上收聽
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
April 11, 2003
BOB GARFIELD: Tony, thank you very much!
ANTHONY SUAU: Thank you.
BOB GARFIELD: For the past 20 years, photojournalist Anthony Suau has covered virtually every major war, but this time he decided to remain on the home front covering rallies and funerals and community events. It's a vantage point that he thought might be just as if not more interesting than the deserts of Iraq. Anthony, welcome to OTM.
ANTHONY SUAU: Thank you.
BOB GARFIELD: This must be a very strange experience for you. As a consumer of war photography - not a producer of it - what is it like for you to be on the other end of the transaction?
ANTHONY SUAU: It's a very interesting sensation. It's easy to see that there's a sort of editing process going on between the photographer and the viewer, and there are many things, I think, affecting that editing process, part of it being that the American public doesn't really want to see certain types of images; they're very sensitive at the moment.
BOB GARFIELD:Well one thing we have seen very little of is blood. Very little civilians or soldiers in agony and certainly very few photographs of dead Iraqis. Where are those pictures?
ANTHONY SUAU: Certainly they exist. I think as a photographer when you're there, it's very emotional and it's, it's overwhelming and kind of as a knee jerk reaction you immediately photograph. The grotesque, gruesome situations are a fundamental reality of war, and if you happen to be there as a photographer, you see that over and over and over again. I do think that the Americans are living in a cocoon about that, and they don't see it, and that's somewhat tragic.
BOB GARFIELD:Do you exercise a sort of self-censorship on the battlefield or in the war zone knowing that certain categories of photograph are just not going to be chosen by a photo editor or a, or a managing editor?
ANTHONY SUAU: No, I don't. I-- and I don't think I've -I've ever seen a photographer that does. I think that when you get into a situation that is-- particularly gruesome -- for example, I remember some very gruesome situations in Haiti -- I remember in Rwanda as well - you don't censor - you feel an, an almost human and moral obligation to really make a document of that - that how atrocious man can be to himself. And you don't really care whether they're published initially or not. However, when you are in that situation, you do know that you can turn off the viewer. The magazine can reject it for that reason. And your interests are to relate to the world what is in front of you - what you're seeing, and so I do think that if the photographer uses his skills, he can look at what would be a gruesome situation and photograph it in a way that maybe won't turn off the viewer, but also get the point across at the same time -- to somehow elude those editors by being more clever than the filter.
BOB GARFIELD:It must be a frustrating thing, because you -as a photographer in a war zone - are taking many, many images, knowing that decisions are being made -- in this case thousands of miles away -- which will inform readers' understanding of the reality on the ground.
ANTHONY SUAU: It's frustrating. It's enormously frustrating. The reality is, though, that those images that you feel are important usually find their way into some sort of publication. I mean I think the immediacy of photography -- it's not its place any more. That's the place of television. We see immediately what's happening across the desert of Iraq on television. Why do I need to duplicate that into a still image? The still photographer needs to use his head to photograph the situation in front of him in a way that can transcend time. That photograph will only be a part of history if it sustains a certain period of time and has second and third and fourth and fifth publications and so on and so on and can live 20 or 30 years down the road and say well that was really what that event was like.
BOB GARFIELD: Anthony Suau is a contract photographer for Time Magazine; he's covered this war, for a change, from the home front.
copyright 2003 WNYC Radio
October 18, 2006
【轉】State-by-state summaries (New York State)
【轉自】Photographers' Guide to Privacy
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/stateindex.html
這個網頁把美國每一州關於攝影者所需要知道與隱私相關的法令分別列出。有興趣的人可以一州州去找。
我點選紐約州，copy/paste在下面：
New York
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/states/newyork.html
The right to privacy in New York is governed solely by a misappropriation statute. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50, 51.
Intrusion: An HBO camera crew filmed models posing naked on New York City streets for a program called "Real:Sex." A bystander who saw a crowd gathered around the models stopped to see what was happening, was filmed as part of the crowd, and appeared on the program in introductory footage as part of the crowd and in a close-up. She had no invasion of privacy claim because she voluntarily joined a crowed gathered at a newsworthy event, and her embarrassment alone could not support an invasion claim. Gaeta v. Home Box Office, 645 N.Y.S.2d 707 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1996).
Television crew members who entered a restaurant, without consent and with cameras rolling, after a health code violation against the restaurant was announced were guilty of trespass. Even though the restaurant was open to the public, the elevision crew had no intention of buying food or beverages there. The court found the crews presence to be noisy and obtrusive and said patronizing a restaurant does not carry with it an obligation to appear on television. Le Mistral Inc. v. CBS, 402 N.Y.S.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978).
A television camera crew intruded on private property when it videotaped unauthorized interviews with minors at an institution for dependent and neglected children. Quinn v. Johnson, 381 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976).
Consent to being photographed may be implied by a highly public lifestyle, which makes the person a subject of public interest. However, a photographer was found to have harassed Jackie Onassis by constantly tailing her, jumping about to position himself for photos, bribing doormen for a chance to get closer to her, and romancing family servants to learn her schedule. Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1973). Nine years later, the photographer was found in contempt of an earlier injunction against such behavior. Galella v. Onassis, 533 F. Supp. 1076 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
A television interview with a mentally impaired criminal defendant, who was found incompetent to stand trial, was intrusive because even though the defendant consented to the interview, his doctor did not. Delan v. CBS, 445 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981), modified, 458 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
A television crew that was invited by a humane society investigator to accompany him could not claim that either the newsworthiness of the officials search of a house or custom implied the consent of the homeowner for the media to enter the house. A court upheld the homeowner s right to bring trespass charges against the media. Anderson v. WROC-TV 441 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1981).
By accompanying federal agents on a search of an apartment, a television news crew may have become a "state actor," and thus, may have violated the constitutional privacy rights of a woman and her son. Ayeni v. CBS Inc., 848 F. Supp. 362 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
Misappropriation: A man who had been held hostage alleged that a magazine photograph essay falsely reported that a new play portrayed his familys experience. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the man would have to prove that the magazine published the essay with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967).
Radio personality Howard Stern sued an Internet services company for using his photograph -- for which he had posed -- without permission in an advertisement for an on-line bulletin board service set up for debating Sterns political candidacy. Stern had no misappropriation claim because the primary goal of the advertisement was to inform potential subscribers about the contents of the on-line service, and the use of Sterns photograph was incidental. Stern v. Delphi Internet Servs., 626 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).
The photograph of a woman who was HIV-positive and afflicted with AIDS-related illnesses was used to illustrate a newspaper article about her, and in the article she was described as having AIDS, rather than as being HIV-positive. She had no claim for the unauthorized use of her likeness for advertising purposes against the newspaper because discrimination against AIDS or HIV-positive patients was a matter of public concern, and state laws relating to the confidentiality of AIDS and HIV diagnoses "apply to health care providers and certain others, not the news media." Cruz v. Latin News, 627 N.Y.S.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995).
The privacy rights of a woman who was photographed at a psychiatric facility walking with the mother implicated in a well-publicized child-beating death were not violated because the photograph was related to a news story about a matter of public interest. The court also rejected an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the photographer, who used a telephoto lens. Hwell v. New York Post Co., 612 N.E.2d 699 (N.Y. 1993).
A doctor won $75,700 for her identified depiction in the background of a picture in a medical centers promotional calendar. Beverley v. Choices Womens Medical Center, Inc., 587 N.E.2d 275 (N.Y. 1991).
A couple whose family photograph illustrated a magazine article about caffeine and fertility could not sue for misappropriation, even though the photograph was taken years earlier for another purpose. The court held there was a link between the newsworthy article about fertility and the picture of a large family. Finger v. Omni Publications International Ltd., 566 N.E.2d 141 (N.Y. 1990).
A man misidentified in a photograph as the person berating the mayor had no cause of action because the picture was newsworthy and was not used for advertising purposes. Bytner v. Capital Newspapers, 492 N.E.2d 1228 (N.Y. 1986).
The photograph of a professional model in a bomber jacket in a column about new products was not misappropriation because it was published to illustrate a legitimate public interest, not for advertising or trade purposes. Stephano v. News Group Publications, 474 N.E.2d 580 (N.Y. 1984).
A photograph of a nude woman and child taken from behind might be misappropriation if the woman and child were identifiable from that position. Cohen v. Herbal Concepts, 472 N.E.2d 307 (N.Y. 1984).
A newspapers publication of a photograph of a black man, taken in a public place, to illustrate an article on the upward mobility of blacks was not misappropriation because his name was not used, and the photograph was published for illustrative, not commercial purposes. But the photographer and agency that supplied the picture to the newspaper were liable under a state misappropriation law. The law subsequently was amended to protect freelancers supplying photographs for use as news. Arrington v. New York Times, 433 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980), modified, 55 N.Y.2d 433 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1146 (1983).
Aides to Sen. Joseph McCarthy could not claim misappropriation based on a film about McCarthy because they did not prove their portrayals were false and published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Cohn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 414 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979), affd, 50 N.Y.2d 885 (N.Y.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1022 (1980).
The use of an athletes photograph was found merely incidental to a magazine advertisement because the magazine carried accurate articles about the athlete. Namath v. Sports Illustrated, 48 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975), affd, 352 N.E.2d 584 (N.Y. 1976).
A magazine cover depicting a spectator watching a parade was not misappropriation because the parade was a newsworthy event. Murray v. New York Magazine Co., 267 N.E.2d 256 (N.Y. 1971).
The use of a photograph of an actress in an advertisement for a magazine, which was republished from an article about her, was incidental and not misappropriation. Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 223 N.Y.S.2d 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962), affd, 182 N.E.2d 812 (N.Y. 1962).
Consent obtained from his agent precluded a model from suing Nintendo for using his photograph on video game packages; the misappropriation statutes consent provision does not encompass the full requirements of a legally binding contract. Cory v. Nintendo of America Inc., 592 N.Y.S.2d 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993).
A newspapers use of a reproduced cover featuring an activist to solicit subscriptions did not misappropriate the activists image. Velez v. VV Publishing Corp., 524 N.Y.S.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div.), cert. denied, 529 N.E.2d 425 (N.Y. 1988).
An episode of Howard Sterns television show included a skit in which a married woman gave Stern a massage, and her husbands photograph appeared during the broadcast. The husbands misappropriation claim was dismissed because the sworthiness" exception extends to comedic performances. Glickman v. Stern, 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1769 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991), affd, 592 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).
The use of an actors old commercial in a television show about classic commercials was newsworthy and was not an advertising or trade use. Welch v. Group W Productions, 525 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987), affd, 540 N.Y.S.2d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989).
A newspaper illustrated an article about young drug dealers with a drawing that a freelance artist based on posed photographs of youths not involved in the drug trade; no misappropriation claim existed because there was no showing that the newspaper was at fault. Quezada v. Daily News, 501 N.Y.S.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Term 1986).
The publication of a photograph of nude sunbathers in a guide book on nude beaches was not misappropriation because the photograph was taken with the consent of the sunbathers and was used to illustrate a book about a matter of public interest. Creel v. Crown Publisher, 496 N.Y.S.2d 219 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985).
A man who alleged his photograph appeared in a magazine for homosexuals, with false statements attributed to him, stated both misappropriation and libel claims. Palmisano v. Modernismo Publications, Ltd., 470 N.Y.S.2d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
A mentally disabled patient who appeared briefly in a documentary about institutionalization had no misappropriation claim regardless of whether there was valid consent because the appearance was incidental, and the documentary was of public interest. Delan v. CBS, Inc., 458 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
The female boxer who alleged that another woman was identified as her in Celebrity Skin magazine stated a misappropriation claim because, although the nude picture of her would be newsworthy, the picture of a woman misidentified as her would not be newsworthy. To prevail, the boxer would be required to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Davis v. High Society Magazine, Inc., 457 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982).
A court overturned a preliminary injunction awarded a well-known model seeking to stop distribution of an edition of Celebrity Skin magazine containing nude photographs of her because money damages could compensate her for any harm, and she did not establish a clear right to relief for the alleged misappropriation. Hansen v. High Society Magazine, Inc., 429 N.Y.S.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980).
Displaying a womans photograph during a talk show did not violate the misappropriation statute because the broadcast about relationships between mothers and daughters was of public interest. Wallace v. WWOR-TV Inc., 21 Med. L. Rptr. 1959 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993).
A model who gave written consent to his photographer was barred from bringing a misappropriation claim when the photographs were used in advertisements. Delaney v. Newsday, 18 Med. L. Rptr. 1885 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
The photograph of a "disappeared" agent and his wife did not misappropriate her image because the photograph had a "real relationship" to an article of public interest. Moreau v. New York Times Co., 15 Med. L. Rptr. 1623 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988).
The use of a boys photograph, without consent, in a book was not actionable because the public had an interest in the subject matter: a childs initiation into an education system through enrollment in a preschool program. McWhir v. Krementz, 15 Med. L. Rptr. 1367 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987).
Footage of a wet T-shirt contestant on cable television was not misappropriation because coverage of the contest was newsworthy and was not for trade or commercial purposes, even though the T-shirts featured a cigarette logo. McCarville v. American Tobacco Co., 11 Med. L. Rptr. 2344 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985).
A construction worker depicted holding hands with a coworker as part of a news broadcast about "Coupls in Love in New York" had no misappropriation claim because romance is of public interest, and the mans appearance was only incidental. DeGregorio v. CBS, 473 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984).
When a photograph of a celebrity "look-alike," who is an instantly recognizable public figure and who has not consented to the use of her likeness for promotional purposes, is published for commercial use in an advertisement, the celebrity has sufficient grounds for a misappropriation claim. Onassis v. Christian Dior, 472 N.Y.S.2d 254 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984).
A female police officer depicted during a televison news segment about premenstrual syndrome had no misappropriation claim because the use was incidental and introduced a report of public interest. Ryan v. ABC, Inc., 9 Med. L. Rptr. 2111 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983).
Models who alleged that a photograph taken for their personal use was included without their consent in an article about how couples endure a womans rape stated a misappropriation claim. Mayers v. Michals, 9 Med. L. Rptr. 1484 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983).
A newspaper that published a photograph of men ogling a woman with an article about a feminist rally later republished the photograph to illustrate an article about psychological rape. The men had no misappropriation claim regarding the second article because the photograph depicted a precise activity discussed in a report of public interest. Bourgeau v. New York News, Inc., 5 Med. L. Rptr. 1799 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979).
The publication of a photograph of a murder suspect in a gubernatorial candidates campaign commercial was not misappropriation because it was not published for trade purposes. Davis v. Duryea, 417 N.Y.S.2d 624 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979).
Babe Ruths heirs had no claim over the use of Ruths likeness in a calendar because the statutory right to privacy does not survive death, and New York does not recognize a common-law right to privacy. Pirone v. Macmillan Inc., 894 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1990).
A wrestling magazine stapled posters of wrestlers into the magazine. An appellate court asked the trial court to determine whether the poster photographs were included for trade purposes, or mainly for public interest purposes. The factors to be considered included the nature of the photos, their relationship to the magazines contents, the ease with which they could be detached, their suitability as separate products, and how the posters were marketed. Titan Sports Inc. v. Comics World Corp., 870 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1989).
Republication of a magazine cover in an advertisement for subscriptions was found to be an incidental use and not a misappropriation. Lerman v. Flynt Distributing, 789 F.2d 164 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 932 (1986).
A magazine incorrectly identified actress Jackie Collins Lerman as the woman in a nude photograph. Although the photograph was newsworthy, this privilege did not apply because the identification accompanying the photograph was false. Nonetheless, no recovery of damages was allowed because there was no evidence that the magazine knew the identification probably was false. Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., 745 F.2d 123 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 (1985).
A court refused to dismiss a misappropriation claim filed by an actress against a sexually explicit cable program that edited her commercial for "crispbread" to make it appear she was engaging in sexual acts. Her false light claim was dismissed because false light is not recognized in New York. Geary v. Goldstein, 831 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
A woman allegedly depicted as a prostitute in the opening credits of the film Sea of Love had no misappropriation claim because her appearance was fleeting and incidental. The court also held that the mere publication of private, personal facts did not give rise to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Preston v. Martin Bregman Productions Inc., 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1057 (S.D.N.Y.1991).
Hustler magazine was ordered to pay a woman $30,000 for publishing a nude photograph of her; the magazine recklessly disregarded the truth of an alleged consent form. The court also found private facts and false light violations, although New York does not recognize these causes of action. Gallon v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 732 F. Supp. 322 (N.D.N.Y. 1990).
A court did not address Woody Allens misappropriation claim regarding a look-alike model in an advertisement but instead enjoined further use of the advertisement under the Lanham Act because of likely consumer confusion. Allen v. Mens World Outlet Inc., 679 F. Supp. 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
An actress who appeared nude in a film did not have a misappropriation claim over a magazines use of an image taken from the film because the image was newsworthy. Ann-Margret v. High Society Magazine, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 401 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
A classical guitarist was entitled to relief under the misappropriation statute when a record company put a picture of another man, dressed in a tuxedo jacket but without trousers, on his album jacket. Jumez v. ABC Records, Inc., 3 Med. L. Rptr. 2324 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/stateindex.html
這個網頁把美國每一州關於攝影者所需要知道與隱私相關的法令分別列出。有興趣的人可以一州州去找。
我點選紐約州，copy/paste在下面：
New York
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/states/newyork.html
The right to privacy in New York is governed solely by a misappropriation statute. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50, 51.
Intrusion: An HBO camera crew filmed models posing naked on New York City streets for a program called "Real:Sex." A bystander who saw a crowd gathered around the models stopped to see what was happening, was filmed as part of the crowd, and appeared on the program in introductory footage as part of the crowd and in a close-up. She had no invasion of privacy claim because she voluntarily joined a crowed gathered at a newsworthy event, and her embarrassment alone could not support an invasion claim. Gaeta v. Home Box Office, 645 N.Y.S.2d 707 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1996).
Television crew members who entered a restaurant, without consent and with cameras rolling, after a health code violation against the restaurant was announced were guilty of trespass. Even though the restaurant was open to the public, the elevision crew had no intention of buying food or beverages there. The court found the crews presence to be noisy and obtrusive and said patronizing a restaurant does not carry with it an obligation to appear on television. Le Mistral Inc. v. CBS, 402 N.Y.S.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978).
A television camera crew intruded on private property when it videotaped unauthorized interviews with minors at an institution for dependent and neglected children. Quinn v. Johnson, 381 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976).
Consent to being photographed may be implied by a highly public lifestyle, which makes the person a subject of public interest. However, a photographer was found to have harassed Jackie Onassis by constantly tailing her, jumping about to position himself for photos, bribing doormen for a chance to get closer to her, and romancing family servants to learn her schedule. Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1973). Nine years later, the photographer was found in contempt of an earlier injunction against such behavior. Galella v. Onassis, 533 F. Supp. 1076 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
A television interview with a mentally impaired criminal defendant, who was found incompetent to stand trial, was intrusive because even though the defendant consented to the interview, his doctor did not. Delan v. CBS, 445 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981), modified, 458 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
A television crew that was invited by a humane society investigator to accompany him could not claim that either the newsworthiness of the officials search of a house or custom implied the consent of the homeowner for the media to enter the house. A court upheld the homeowner s right to bring trespass charges against the media. Anderson v. WROC-TV 441 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1981).
By accompanying federal agents on a search of an apartment, a television news crew may have become a "state actor," and thus, may have violated the constitutional privacy rights of a woman and her son. Ayeni v. CBS Inc., 848 F. Supp. 362 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
Misappropriation: A man who had been held hostage alleged that a magazine photograph essay falsely reported that a new play portrayed his familys experience. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the man would have to prove that the magazine published the essay with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967).
Radio personality Howard Stern sued an Internet services company for using his photograph -- for which he had posed -- without permission in an advertisement for an on-line bulletin board service set up for debating Sterns political candidacy. Stern had no misappropriation claim because the primary goal of the advertisement was to inform potential subscribers about the contents of the on-line service, and the use of Sterns photograph was incidental. Stern v. Delphi Internet Servs., 626 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).
The photograph of a woman who was HIV-positive and afflicted with AIDS-related illnesses was used to illustrate a newspaper article about her, and in the article she was described as having AIDS, rather than as being HIV-positive. She had no claim for the unauthorized use of her likeness for advertising purposes against the newspaper because discrimination against AIDS or HIV-positive patients was a matter of public concern, and state laws relating to the confidentiality of AIDS and HIV diagnoses "apply to health care providers and certain others, not the news media." Cruz v. Latin News, 627 N.Y.S.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995).
The privacy rights of a woman who was photographed at a psychiatric facility walking with the mother implicated in a well-publicized child-beating death were not violated because the photograph was related to a news story about a matter of public interest. The court also rejected an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the photographer, who used a telephoto lens. Hwell v. New York Post Co., 612 N.E.2d 699 (N.Y. 1993).
A doctor won $75,700 for her identified depiction in the background of a picture in a medical centers promotional calendar. Beverley v. Choices Womens Medical Center, Inc., 587 N.E.2d 275 (N.Y. 1991).
A couple whose family photograph illustrated a magazine article about caffeine and fertility could not sue for misappropriation, even though the photograph was taken years earlier for another purpose. The court held there was a link between the newsworthy article about fertility and the picture of a large family. Finger v. Omni Publications International Ltd., 566 N.E.2d 141 (N.Y. 1990).
A man misidentified in a photograph as the person berating the mayor had no cause of action because the picture was newsworthy and was not used for advertising purposes. Bytner v. Capital Newspapers, 492 N.E.2d 1228 (N.Y. 1986).
The photograph of a professional model in a bomber jacket in a column about new products was not misappropriation because it was published to illustrate a legitimate public interest, not for advertising or trade purposes. Stephano v. News Group Publications, 474 N.E.2d 580 (N.Y. 1984).
A photograph of a nude woman and child taken from behind might be misappropriation if the woman and child were identifiable from that position. Cohen v. Herbal Concepts, 472 N.E.2d 307 (N.Y. 1984).
A newspapers publication of a photograph of a black man, taken in a public place, to illustrate an article on the upward mobility of blacks was not misappropriation because his name was not used, and the photograph was published for illustrative, not commercial purposes. But the photographer and agency that supplied the picture to the newspaper were liable under a state misappropriation law. The law subsequently was amended to protect freelancers supplying photographs for use as news. Arrington v. New York Times, 433 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980), modified, 55 N.Y.2d 433 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1146 (1983).
Aides to Sen. Joseph McCarthy could not claim misappropriation based on a film about McCarthy because they did not prove their portrayals were false and published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Cohn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 414 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979), affd, 50 N.Y.2d 885 (N.Y.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1022 (1980).
The use of an athletes photograph was found merely incidental to a magazine advertisement because the magazine carried accurate articles about the athlete. Namath v. Sports Illustrated, 48 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975), affd, 352 N.E.2d 584 (N.Y. 1976).
A magazine cover depicting a spectator watching a parade was not misappropriation because the parade was a newsworthy event. Murray v. New York Magazine Co., 267 N.E.2d 256 (N.Y. 1971).
The use of a photograph of an actress in an advertisement for a magazine, which was republished from an article about her, was incidental and not misappropriation. Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 223 N.Y.S.2d 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962), affd, 182 N.E.2d 812 (N.Y. 1962).
Consent obtained from his agent precluded a model from suing Nintendo for using his photograph on video game packages; the misappropriation statutes consent provision does not encompass the full requirements of a legally binding contract. Cory v. Nintendo of America Inc., 592 N.Y.S.2d 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993).
A newspapers use of a reproduced cover featuring an activist to solicit subscriptions did not misappropriate the activists image. Velez v. VV Publishing Corp., 524 N.Y.S.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div.), cert. denied, 529 N.E.2d 425 (N.Y. 1988).
An episode of Howard Sterns television show included a skit in which a married woman gave Stern a massage, and her husbands photograph appeared during the broadcast. The husbands misappropriation claim was dismissed because the sworthiness" exception extends to comedic performances. Glickman v. Stern, 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1769 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991), affd, 592 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).
The use of an actors old commercial in a television show about classic commercials was newsworthy and was not an advertising or trade use. Welch v. Group W Productions, 525 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987), affd, 540 N.Y.S.2d 121 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989).
A newspaper illustrated an article about young drug dealers with a drawing that a freelance artist based on posed photographs of youths not involved in the drug trade; no misappropriation claim existed because there was no showing that the newspaper was at fault. Quezada v. Daily News, 501 N.Y.S.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Term 1986).
The publication of a photograph of nude sunbathers in a guide book on nude beaches was not misappropriation because the photograph was taken with the consent of the sunbathers and was used to illustrate a book about a matter of public interest. Creel v. Crown Publisher, 496 N.Y.S.2d 219 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985).
A man who alleged his photograph appeared in a magazine for homosexuals, with false statements attributed to him, stated both misappropriation and libel claims. Palmisano v. Modernismo Publications, Ltd., 470 N.Y.S.2d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
A mentally disabled patient who appeared briefly in a documentary about institutionalization had no misappropriation claim regardless of whether there was valid consent because the appearance was incidental, and the documentary was of public interest. Delan v. CBS, Inc., 458 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983).
The female boxer who alleged that another woman was identified as her in Celebrity Skin magazine stated a misappropriation claim because, although the nude picture of her would be newsworthy, the picture of a woman misidentified as her would not be newsworthy. To prevail, the boxer would be required to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Davis v. High Society Magazine, Inc., 457 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982).
A court overturned a preliminary injunction awarded a well-known model seeking to stop distribution of an edition of Celebrity Skin magazine containing nude photographs of her because money damages could compensate her for any harm, and she did not establish a clear right to relief for the alleged misappropriation. Hansen v. High Society Magazine, Inc., 429 N.Y.S.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980).
Displaying a womans photograph during a talk show did not violate the misappropriation statute because the broadcast about relationships between mothers and daughters was of public interest. Wallace v. WWOR-TV Inc., 21 Med. L. Rptr. 1959 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993).
A model who gave written consent to his photographer was barred from bringing a misappropriation claim when the photographs were used in advertisements. Delaney v. Newsday, 18 Med. L. Rptr. 1885 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
The photograph of a "disappeared" agent and his wife did not misappropriate her image because the photograph had a "real relationship" to an article of public interest. Moreau v. New York Times Co., 15 Med. L. Rptr. 1623 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988).
The use of a boys photograph, without consent, in a book was not actionable because the public had an interest in the subject matter: a childs initiation into an education system through enrollment in a preschool program. McWhir v. Krementz, 15 Med. L. Rptr. 1367 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987).
Footage of a wet T-shirt contestant on cable television was not misappropriation because coverage of the contest was newsworthy and was not for trade or commercial purposes, even though the T-shirts featured a cigarette logo. McCarville v. American Tobacco Co., 11 Med. L. Rptr. 2344 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985).
A construction worker depicted holding hands with a coworker as part of a news broadcast about "Coupls in Love in New York" had no misappropriation claim because romance is of public interest, and the mans appearance was only incidental. DeGregorio v. CBS, 473 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984).
When a photograph of a celebrity "look-alike," who is an instantly recognizable public figure and who has not consented to the use of her likeness for promotional purposes, is published for commercial use in an advertisement, the celebrity has sufficient grounds for a misappropriation claim. Onassis v. Christian Dior, 472 N.Y.S.2d 254 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984).
A female police officer depicted during a televison news segment about premenstrual syndrome had no misappropriation claim because the use was incidental and introduced a report of public interest. Ryan v. ABC, Inc., 9 Med. L. Rptr. 2111 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983).
Models who alleged that a photograph taken for their personal use was included without their consent in an article about how couples endure a womans rape stated a misappropriation claim. Mayers v. Michals, 9 Med. L. Rptr. 1484 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983).
A newspaper that published a photograph of men ogling a woman with an article about a feminist rally later republished the photograph to illustrate an article about psychological rape. The men had no misappropriation claim regarding the second article because the photograph depicted a precise activity discussed in a report of public interest. Bourgeau v. New York News, Inc., 5 Med. L. Rptr. 1799 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979).
The publication of a photograph of a murder suspect in a gubernatorial candidates campaign commercial was not misappropriation because it was not published for trade purposes. Davis v. Duryea, 417 N.Y.S.2d 624 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979).
Babe Ruths heirs had no claim over the use of Ruths likeness in a calendar because the statutory right to privacy does not survive death, and New York does not recognize a common-law right to privacy. Pirone v. Macmillan Inc., 894 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1990).
A wrestling magazine stapled posters of wrestlers into the magazine. An appellate court asked the trial court to determine whether the poster photographs were included for trade purposes, or mainly for public interest purposes. The factors to be considered included the nature of the photos, their relationship to the magazines contents, the ease with which they could be detached, their suitability as separate products, and how the posters were marketed. Titan Sports Inc. v. Comics World Corp., 870 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1989).
Republication of a magazine cover in an advertisement for subscriptions was found to be an incidental use and not a misappropriation. Lerman v. Flynt Distributing, 789 F.2d 164 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 932 (1986).
A magazine incorrectly identified actress Jackie Collins Lerman as the woman in a nude photograph. Although the photograph was newsworthy, this privilege did not apply because the identification accompanying the photograph was false. Nonetheless, no recovery of damages was allowed because there was no evidence that the magazine knew the identification probably was false. Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., 745 F.2d 123 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 (1985).
A court refused to dismiss a misappropriation claim filed by an actress against a sexually explicit cable program that edited her commercial for "crispbread" to make it appear she was engaging in sexual acts. Her false light claim was dismissed because false light is not recognized in New York. Geary v. Goldstein, 831 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
A woman allegedly depicted as a prostitute in the opening credits of the film Sea of Love had no misappropriation claim because her appearance was fleeting and incidental. The court also held that the mere publication of private, personal facts did not give rise to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Preston v. Martin Bregman Productions Inc., 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1057 (S.D.N.Y.1991).
Hustler magazine was ordered to pay a woman $30,000 for publishing a nude photograph of her; the magazine recklessly disregarded the truth of an alleged consent form. The court also found private facts and false light violations, although New York does not recognize these causes of action. Gallon v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 732 F. Supp. 322 (N.D.N.Y. 1990).
A court did not address Woody Allens misappropriation claim regarding a look-alike model in an advertisement but instead enjoined further use of the advertisement under the Lanham Act because of likely consumer confusion. Allen v. Mens World Outlet Inc., 679 F. Supp. 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
An actress who appeared nude in a film did not have a misappropriation claim over a magazines use of an image taken from the film because the image was newsworthy. Ann-Margret v. High Society Magazine, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 401 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
A classical guitarist was entitled to relief under the misappropriation statute when a record company put a picture of another man, dressed in a tuxedo jacket but without trousers, on his album jacket. Jumez v. ABC Records, Inc., 3 Med. L. Rptr. 2324 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
【轉】9 Keys to Avoiding
【轉自】Photographers' Guide to Privacy
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/ninekeys.html
9 Keys to Avoiding
Invasion of Privacy Suits
The best hedge against invasion of privacy suits is knowledge of the law in the jurisdiction in which the photograph or videotape is shot and published or broadcast. However, the line between journalism that is protected by the First Amendment and state law, and journalism that creates liability for invasion of privacy, is rarely clear.
Before taking or publishing a questionable picture, a photojournalist might want to consider several factors:
Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent.
Even if people are photographed in public, beware of the context in which the picture is placed (such as an innocuous photo of recognizable teen-agers in a story about the rise of teen violence). Use caution when utilizing file footage or photographs to illustrate negative stories. Special effects can be used to render the subjects unidentifiable.
If consent is required, it must be obtained from someone who can validly give it. For example, permission from a child or mentally handicapped person may not be valid, and a tenant may not be authorized to permit photographs of parts of the building not rented by the tenant.
Consent to enter a home may not be consent to photograph it. Consent exceeded can be the same as no consent at all.
Although oral consent may protect the press from liability for invasion of privacy, written consent is more likely to foreclose the possibility of a lawsuit. However, a subjects subsequent withdrawal of consent does not bar the publication of the photograph. It simply means that the journalist may not assert consent as a defense if the subject later files suit. In some states the commercial use of a photograph requires prior written consent.
Permission from a police department to accompany officers who legally enter private property may not immunize journalists from invasion of privacy suits. In most states, authorities may deny photographers access to crime scenes and disaster areas.
Public officials and public figures, and people who become involved in events of public interest, have less right to privacy than do private persons.
In some states, using hidden cameras, or audiotaping people without their consent, may invite criminal or civil penalties.
A photograph may intrude into a persons seclusion without being published. Intrusion can occur as soon as the image is taken.
Privacy laws vary widely from state to state, and the law often is unclear within a given state. If in doubt about a situation, a call to a media lawyer or to the Reporters Committee may help you assess the risk.
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/ninekeys.html
9 Keys to Avoiding
Invasion of Privacy Suits
The best hedge against invasion of privacy suits is knowledge of the law in the jurisdiction in which the photograph or videotape is shot and published or broadcast. However, the line between journalism that is protected by the First Amendment and state law, and journalism that creates liability for invasion of privacy, is rarely clear.
Before taking or publishing a questionable picture, a photojournalist might want to consider several factors:
Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent.
Even if people are photographed in public, beware of the context in which the picture is placed (such as an innocuous photo of recognizable teen-agers in a story about the rise of teen violence). Use caution when utilizing file footage or photographs to illustrate negative stories. Special effects can be used to render the subjects unidentifiable.
If consent is required, it must be obtained from someone who can validly give it. For example, permission from a child or mentally handicapped person may not be valid, and a tenant may not be authorized to permit photographs of parts of the building not rented by the tenant.
Consent to enter a home may not be consent to photograph it. Consent exceeded can be the same as no consent at all.
Although oral consent may protect the press from liability for invasion of privacy, written consent is more likely to foreclose the possibility of a lawsuit. However, a subjects subsequent withdrawal of consent does not bar the publication of the photograph. It simply means that the journalist may not assert consent as a defense if the subject later files suit. In some states the commercial use of a photograph requires prior written consent.
Permission from a police department to accompany officers who legally enter private property may not immunize journalists from invasion of privacy suits. In most states, authorities may deny photographers access to crime scenes and disaster areas.
Public officials and public figures, and people who become involved in events of public interest, have less right to privacy than do private persons.
In some states, using hidden cameras, or audiotaping people without their consent, may invite criminal or civil penalties.
A photograph may intrude into a persons seclusion without being published. Intrusion can occur as soon as the image is taken.
Privacy laws vary widely from state to state, and the law often is unclear within a given state. If in doubt about a situation, a call to a media lawyer or to the Reporters Committee may help you assess the risk.
【轉】What every cameraman, photographer and videographer should know about invasion of privacy standards in the 50 states and D.C.
【轉自】Photographers' Guide to Privacy
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html
A primer on invasion of privacy
Celebrities, politicians and other sought-after sources of news would appear, by their routine claims that members of the media have violated their privacy, to understand precisely what is private and what is public, or newsworthy, information.
Journalists, however, often possess different notions of privacy and newsworthiness, and know that the question is more complicated. Reporting news stories in a way that serves and informs the public will often entail publicizing facts or displaying images that will embarrass or anger someone.
To make privacy matters even more difficult for journalists, courts constantly redefine what is private based upon interpretations of the elusive legal standard of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." For example, the California Supreme Court recently introduced into the equation the question of whether the claimed intruder is a member of the news media -- thus allowing privacy claims based upon the fact that an individual expected not to be observed by a member of the news media, rather than the fact that the individual expected not to be observed in general. See Sanders v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999).
The U.S. Supreme Courts scolding of the media in the 1999 "ride along" cases for a perceived inattention to the privacy rights of the people featured in the news most likely reflects the current attitude of many judges and lawmakers and, thus, underscores the importance for journalists to be aware of general privacy principles.
In the context of determining that law enforcement officers who permit the news media to accompany them across the threshold of a home while serving a search warrant violate the Fourth Amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court expressed disdain for the medias arguments in favor of access to information related to the execution of warrants, but alleged by the subjects of those warrants to be private.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the presence of the news media did not further the objectives of an authorized intrusion by law nforcement officers into a home to execute a search or arrest warrant. The ostensible benefits of media presence -- accurately informing the public about law enforcement efforts to control crime, minimizing police abuses, and protecting officers from violence by the subjects of searches and arrests by recording those events -- were outweighed by the privacy interest of homeowners.
The assertion that media presence during the execution of a search warrant can serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose "ignores the importance of the right of residential privacy at the core of the Fourth Amendment," the Court held.
The California Supreme Court has taken a similar position on media presence and privacy and in two cases decided in 1998 and 1999, allowed the subjects of broadcast news pieces to hinge the parameters of their expected privacy on the nuances and gradations of their surroundings.
In June 1998, Californias highest court concluded that two people injured in a car accident could sue for invasion of privacy based on the fact that a cameraman recorded emergency aid given in a rescue helicopter. The accident victims, the court held, could claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rescue helicopter, even if they did not expect their conversations in the helicopter would not be overheard and could not claim a right to privacy at the accident scene prior to being moved to the helicopter. See Shulman v. Group W Productions, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998).
A year later, the California Supreme Court held that even an employee who knows a conversation in an open office space will be overheard by coworkers can pursue an invasion of privacy claim if that conversation is recorded by a reporters hidden camera. The case involved "telepsychic" hotline workers who were secretly videotaped by an undercover reporter, and writing for the court, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar rejected the notion of privacy as an "all-or-nothing" concept and described an "expectation of limited privacy."
"There are degrees and nuances to societal recognition of our expectations of privacy: the fact the privacy one expects in a given setting is not complete or absolute does not render the expectation unreasonable as a matter of law," she wrote.
The court noted its ruling was not meant to imply "that investigative journalists necessarily commit a tort by secretly recording events and conversations in offices, stores, or other workplaces." However, the courts ruling allows the "identity of the claimed intruder and the means of intrusion" to determine whether the subjective expectation of privacy was reasonable. See Sanders v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999).
The combination of a lack of recognition for the benefits of undercover investigative journalism and an acceptance of gradations of privacy in offices and stores open to the public by appellate courts of last resort such as the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court puts journalists with no knowledge of privacy law in a dangerous position.
Under different circumstances, however, courts find the news media are justified in doing what their subjects may feel is invasive. For example, in May 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review the decision of a split federal court of appeals in Pasadena (9th Cir.) that a flight attendant could not sue ABC for surreptitiously videotaping her from across the street as she stood at her doorstep and spoke to an ABC producer. The flight attendant had been on the flight that O.J. Simpson took on the night of his ex-wifes murder, and she voluntarily spoke with a producer who identified himself as a member of the news media on her doorstep, but declined an on-camera interview.
The flight attendant could not claim an invasion of her privacy occurred, however, because she knowingly spoke to a member of the media about a newsworthy topic and was filmed in public view from a public place. In rejecting her claim, the majority of the federal appellate court in Pasadena noted that the producer "id not enter her home. There was no evidence that any intimate details of anyones life were recorded."
The pursuit and publication of images can expose journalists to crushing financial liability if a court determines that the news organization has invaded a persons privacy. The invasion of anothers privacy is a "tort," meaning a civil wrong against another that results in injury.
A privacy tort occurs when a person or entity breaches the duty to leave another person alone. When journalists intrude on a persons privacy and cause emotional or monetary injury, they may be forced to pay damages.[1]
Each state has developed its own privacy law, either through the common law, statutes, or both. The right to privacy is an evolving branch of the law, and in most jurisdictions many legal questions remain unsettled.[2]
The First Amendment places some limits on the application of privacy law to the media. It does not, however, immunize the media completely. To avoid lawsuits, journalists must know how the law in their jurisdiction balances the competing interests of the press and the public against the privacy interests of the subjects of reports.
Courts have recognized four major branches of privacy law: 1) unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion; 2) unreasonable revelation of private facts; 3) unreasonably placing another person in a false light before the public; and 4) misappropriation of a persons name or likeness.
The facts of a particular case may implicate more than one branch of privacy law. Some states refuse to recognize one or more of the four torts; other states replace or supplement the common law with statutory privacy rights.[3]
This guide provides a general explanation of each privacy tort and related causes of action. The state case law section summarizes privacy cases involving photography from federal and state courts throughout the country.
Although photography poses some unique problems in privacy law, in general the legal analysis for invasion of privacy through images parallels the analysis for invasions through words. A complete examination of the privacy law in every jurisdiction is beyond the scope of this guide. However, the introduction to each state summary notes which of the four privacy torts have been recognized in any context by the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intrusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652B.
Journalists run afoul of this tort through the process of gathering information. The subsequent publication of the information is not required.
Actions that may violate this privacy right include trespass onto private property, hidden surveillance, and the fraudulent entry into private areas.
Conduct that invades privacy may also violate the criminal law. In general, courts have held that journalists mst obey generally applicable laws. See, e.g., Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 111 S.Ct. 2513 (1991) (newspaper not immune from liability to source after paper broke confidentiality agreement); City of Oak Creek v. Ah King, 436 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1989) (photographer has no First Amendment right of access to crash scene from which the public has been excluded); Stahl v. Oklahoma, 665 P.2d 839 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983) (journalists who accompanied nuclear power plant protestors guilty of criminal trespass).
Trespass is the illegal entry onto private property. If the owner or person in charge of private property orders a photographer to leave, the photographer should leave or be prepared to face a trespass charge. Photographers who accompany police onto private property are not necessarily immune from liability.
Twelve states have statutes that ban the surreptitious use of cameras in private places. See box on page 4. The statutes are described in the general law category of the state-by-state privacy law summary.
Camera operators should also be aware of federal and state laws that govern the taping of oral communications. The federal wiretap statute prohibits the interception of oral communications unless one party -- such as the journalist -- consents to the recording. 18 U.S.C. 壯 2510-2520. Some states go further, and bar the taping of oral communications unless all parties consent to the taping. See box on page 5. The all-party consent statutes are also noted in the general law category of the state summary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Facts
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the matter is of a kind that:
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and
(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652D.
The private facts tort presents the disturbing scenario in which journalists may be liable for money damages for reporting the truth. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that in this particular privacy tort, "claims of privacy most directly confront the constitutional freedoms of speech and press." Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975).
In several cases the Supreme Court has held that "where a newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order." Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 541 (1989).
Although the Supreme Court has prevented states from punishing journalists who published legally obtained names of juvenile offenders and rape victims, the Court has not absolutely rejected the private facts tort in this context. Although crimes such as rape are newsworthy -- and newsworthiness is a defense to a private facts suit -- not all courts have agreed that the identity of a rape victim is newsworthy.
Absent special circumstances involving crime victims and witnesses, photographs of virtually anything visible in a public place do not give rise to actions for publication of private facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if:
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652E.
A photograph or videotape by itself will rarely place a subject in a false light. Rather, the accompanying text, caption, or voice-over could be misleading and portray the person in a false context. However, an accurate depiction of a person in a publication the person finds offensive does not, in itself, state a false light claim.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-88 (1967), concerning a photo essay about a fictionalized play based on a real-life hostage drama, that the First Amendment bars recovery for "false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth."
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions, however, left open the possibility that in cases involving private persons rather than public figures, states could permit false light recovery if plaintiffs merely proved negligence.
Although the facts that give rise to a false light claim may also support a defamation claim, injury to reputation is not required for a false light claim. The false light tort aims primarily to protect against emotional distress rather than to protect ones reputation. First Amendment concerns, and the similarity between the claims, have persuaded some states not to recognize the false light tort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misappropriation
One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652C
States often have detailed statutes that govern the right of publicity. These laws have two purposes: 1) to protect ordinary individuals from the mental anguish that may accompany the undesired commercial use of their name or image, and 2) to protect the property interest that celebrities develop in their identities.
Under these laws the use of a relevant picture to illustrate a newsworthy article will generally not lead to liability. The unauthorized use of a celebritys picture in an advertisement often will.[4]
However, the Supreme Court ruled that newsworthiness is not necessarily a defense to a misappropriation claim. In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co, 433 U.S 562 (1977), the court ruled that a news broadcast showing the entire 15-second act of a "human cannonball" violated his right to publicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defenses To Privacy Suits
Several defenses are available to photographers and news organizations accused of invasion of privacy.
If the subject of the photograph has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no invasion of privacy is possible. Photographs taken in public places generally are not actionable. Photos of crimes, arrests and accidents usually are considered newsworthy and immune from privacy claims.
Public figures, who voluntarily expose themselves to scrutiny, waive much of their right to privacy.
Corporations generally cannot claim a right to privacy; unlike the defamation tort, the right to privacy concerns the personal "right to be left alone" rather than reputation. Heirs cannot file suit on behalf of deceased people, although some states make exceptions for misappropriation claims.
If a subject does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, consent to have photographs taken and published is a defense to an invasion of privacy action.
In deciding whether to take and publish a questionable photograph, journalists must consider many factors. The following pages survey the privacy law of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, with emphasis on cases involving photography. In many states the courts have not addressed or resolved questions about the scope of privacy law. Many cases turn on subtle distinctions of fact, and could be decided either way. When in doubt, you should consult an attorney or call the Reporters Committees toll-free legal assistance hotline: 1-800-336-4243.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Notes
1 Even if a news organization arguably violates a subjects right to privacy, the subjects remedy usually will not include the ability to bar the publication of the picture. See CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 114 S.Ct. 912 (Blackmun, Circuit Justice 1994) (granting relief from injunction barring broadcast of surreptitious videotape of beef processing plant because of presumptive invalidity of prior restraints)
2 People also have a constitutional right to privacy that protects against invasions by the government. Journalists who act jointly with government officials could violate a persons constitutional privacy right. See, e.g., Ayeni v. CBS Inc., 848 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
3 Journalists conduct also may lead to other tort claims, such as trespass or the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4 Because the use of a celebritys likeness in advertising may imply endorsement, a celebrity whose likeness is used without consent may also have a claim under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. ?1125(a), which prohibits false descriptions of products or their origins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photographers Guide to Privacy
Fall 1999
The Reporters Committee is grateful to legal fellow Melissa Bartlett and legal intern Marit Bank for their work in researching and updating this guide. They built on the work of previous fellows and interns.
Editor: Nicki Ballinger
© 1999 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced without the written permission of the Reporters Committee.
The Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press
1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 807-2100
web: http://www.rcfp.org
e-mail: rcfp@rcfp.org
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html
A primer on invasion of privacy
Celebrities, politicians and other sought-after sources of news would appear, by their routine claims that members of the media have violated their privacy, to understand precisely what is private and what is public, or newsworthy, information.
Journalists, however, often possess different notions of privacy and newsworthiness, and know that the question is more complicated. Reporting news stories in a way that serves and informs the public will often entail publicizing facts or displaying images that will embarrass or anger someone.
To make privacy matters even more difficult for journalists, courts constantly redefine what is private based upon interpretations of the elusive legal standard of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." For example, the California Supreme Court recently introduced into the equation the question of whether the claimed intruder is a member of the news media -- thus allowing privacy claims based upon the fact that an individual expected not to be observed by a member of the news media, rather than the fact that the individual expected not to be observed in general. See Sanders v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999).
The U.S. Supreme Courts scolding of the media in the 1999 "ride along" cases for a perceived inattention to the privacy rights of the people featured in the news most likely reflects the current attitude of many judges and lawmakers and, thus, underscores the importance for journalists to be aware of general privacy principles.
In the context of determining that law enforcement officers who permit the news media to accompany them across the threshold of a home while serving a search warrant violate the Fourth Amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court expressed disdain for the medias arguments in favor of access to information related to the execution of warrants, but alleged by the subjects of those warrants to be private.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the presence of the news media did not further the objectives of an authorized intrusion by law nforcement officers into a home to execute a search or arrest warrant. The ostensible benefits of media presence -- accurately informing the public about law enforcement efforts to control crime, minimizing police abuses, and protecting officers from violence by the subjects of searches and arrests by recording those events -- were outweighed by the privacy interest of homeowners.
The assertion that media presence during the execution of a search warrant can serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose "ignores the importance of the right of residential privacy at the core of the Fourth Amendment," the Court held.
The California Supreme Court has taken a similar position on media presence and privacy and in two cases decided in 1998 and 1999, allowed the subjects of broadcast news pieces to hinge the parameters of their expected privacy on the nuances and gradations of their surroundings.
In June 1998, Californias highest court concluded that two people injured in a car accident could sue for invasion of privacy based on the fact that a cameraman recorded emergency aid given in a rescue helicopter. The accident victims, the court held, could claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rescue helicopter, even if they did not expect their conversations in the helicopter would not be overheard and could not claim a right to privacy at the accident scene prior to being moved to the helicopter. See Shulman v. Group W Productions, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998).
A year later, the California Supreme Court held that even an employee who knows a conversation in an open office space will be overheard by coworkers can pursue an invasion of privacy claim if that conversation is recorded by a reporters hidden camera. The case involved "telepsychic" hotline workers who were secretly videotaped by an undercover reporter, and writing for the court, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar rejected the notion of privacy as an "all-or-nothing" concept and described an "expectation of limited privacy."
"There are degrees and nuances to societal recognition of our expectations of privacy: the fact the privacy one expects in a given setting is not complete or absolute does not render the expectation unreasonable as a matter of law," she wrote.
The court noted its ruling was not meant to imply "that investigative journalists necessarily commit a tort by secretly recording events and conversations in offices, stores, or other workplaces." However, the courts ruling allows the "identity of the claimed intruder and the means of intrusion" to determine whether the subjective expectation of privacy was reasonable. See Sanders v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999).
The combination of a lack of recognition for the benefits of undercover investigative journalism and an acceptance of gradations of privacy in offices and stores open to the public by appellate courts of last resort such as the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court puts journalists with no knowledge of privacy law in a dangerous position.
Under different circumstances, however, courts find the news media are justified in doing what their subjects may feel is invasive. For example, in May 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review the decision of a split federal court of appeals in Pasadena (9th Cir.) that a flight attendant could not sue ABC for surreptitiously videotaping her from across the street as she stood at her doorstep and spoke to an ABC producer. The flight attendant had been on the flight that O.J. Simpson took on the night of his ex-wifes murder, and she voluntarily spoke with a producer who identified himself as a member of the news media on her doorstep, but declined an on-camera interview.
The flight attendant could not claim an invasion of her privacy occurred, however, because she knowingly spoke to a member of the media about a newsworthy topic and was filmed in public view from a public place. In rejecting her claim, the majority of the federal appellate court in Pasadena noted that the producer "id not enter her home. There was no evidence that any intimate details of anyones life were recorded."
The pursuit and publication of images can expose journalists to crushing financial liability if a court determines that the news organization has invaded a persons privacy. The invasion of anothers privacy is a "tort," meaning a civil wrong against another that results in injury.
A privacy tort occurs when a person or entity breaches the duty to leave another person alone. When journalists intrude on a persons privacy and cause emotional or monetary injury, they may be forced to pay damages.[1]
Each state has developed its own privacy law, either through the common law, statutes, or both. The right to privacy is an evolving branch of the law, and in most jurisdictions many legal questions remain unsettled.[2]
The First Amendment places some limits on the application of privacy law to the media. It does not, however, immunize the media completely. To avoid lawsuits, journalists must know how the law in their jurisdiction balances the competing interests of the press and the public against the privacy interests of the subjects of reports.
Courts have recognized four major branches of privacy law: 1) unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion; 2) unreasonable revelation of private facts; 3) unreasonably placing another person in a false light before the public; and 4) misappropriation of a persons name or likeness.
The facts of a particular case may implicate more than one branch of privacy law. Some states refuse to recognize one or more of the four torts; other states replace or supplement the common law with statutory privacy rights.[3]
This guide provides a general explanation of each privacy tort and related causes of action. The state case law section summarizes privacy cases involving photography from federal and state courts throughout the country.
Although photography poses some unique problems in privacy law, in general the legal analysis for invasion of privacy through images parallels the analysis for invasions through words. A complete examination of the privacy law in every jurisdiction is beyond the scope of this guide. However, the introduction to each state summary notes which of the four privacy torts have been recognized in any context by the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intrusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652B.
Journalists run afoul of this tort through the process of gathering information. The subsequent publication of the information is not required.
Actions that may violate this privacy right include trespass onto private property, hidden surveillance, and the fraudulent entry into private areas.
Conduct that invades privacy may also violate the criminal law. In general, courts have held that journalists mst obey generally applicable laws. See, e.g., Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 111 S.Ct. 2513 (1991) (newspaper not immune from liability to source after paper broke confidentiality agreement); City of Oak Creek v. Ah King, 436 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1989) (photographer has no First Amendment right of access to crash scene from which the public has been excluded); Stahl v. Oklahoma, 665 P.2d 839 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983) (journalists who accompanied nuclear power plant protestors guilty of criminal trespass).
Trespass is the illegal entry onto private property. If the owner or person in charge of private property orders a photographer to leave, the photographer should leave or be prepared to face a trespass charge. Photographers who accompany police onto private property are not necessarily immune from liability.
Twelve states have statutes that ban the surreptitious use of cameras in private places. See box on page 4. The statutes are described in the general law category of the state-by-state privacy law summary.
Camera operators should also be aware of federal and state laws that govern the taping of oral communications. The federal wiretap statute prohibits the interception of oral communications unless one party -- such as the journalist -- consents to the recording. 18 U.S.C. 壯 2510-2520. Some states go further, and bar the taping of oral communications unless all parties consent to the taping. See box on page 5. The all-party consent statutes are also noted in the general law category of the state summary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Facts
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the matter is of a kind that:
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and
(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652D.
The private facts tort presents the disturbing scenario in which journalists may be liable for money damages for reporting the truth. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that in this particular privacy tort, "claims of privacy most directly confront the constitutional freedoms of speech and press." Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975).
In several cases the Supreme Court has held that "where a newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order." Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 541 (1989).
Although the Supreme Court has prevented states from punishing journalists who published legally obtained names of juvenile offenders and rape victims, the Court has not absolutely rejected the private facts tort in this context. Although crimes such as rape are newsworthy -- and newsworthiness is a defense to a private facts suit -- not all courts have agreed that the identity of a rape victim is newsworthy.
Absent special circumstances involving crime victims and witnesses, photographs of virtually anything visible in a public place do not give rise to actions for publication of private facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if:
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652E.
A photograph or videotape by itself will rarely place a subject in a false light. Rather, the accompanying text, caption, or voice-over could be misleading and portray the person in a false context. However, an accurate depiction of a person in a publication the person finds offensive does not, in itself, state a false light claim.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 387-88 (1967), concerning a photo essay about a fictionalized play based on a real-life hostage drama, that the First Amendment bars recovery for "false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth."
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions, however, left open the possibility that in cases involving private persons rather than public figures, states could permit false light recovery if plaintiffs merely proved negligence.
Although the facts that give rise to a false light claim may also support a defamation claim, injury to reputation is not required for a false light claim. The false light tort aims primarily to protect against emotional distress rather than to protect ones reputation. First Amendment concerns, and the similarity between the claims, have persuaded some states not to recognize the false light tort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misappropriation
One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ?652C
States often have detailed statutes that govern the right of publicity. These laws have two purposes: 1) to protect ordinary individuals from the mental anguish that may accompany the undesired commercial use of their name or image, and 2) to protect the property interest that celebrities develop in their identities.
Under these laws the use of a relevant picture to illustrate a newsworthy article will generally not lead to liability. The unauthorized use of a celebritys picture in an advertisement often will.[4]
However, the Supreme Court ruled that newsworthiness is not necessarily a defense to a misappropriation claim. In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co, 433 U.S 562 (1977), the court ruled that a news broadcast showing the entire 15-second act of a "human cannonball" violated his right to publicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defenses To Privacy Suits
Several defenses are available to photographers and news organizations accused of invasion of privacy.
If the subject of the photograph has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no invasion of privacy is possible. Photographs taken in public places generally are not actionable. Photos of crimes, arrests and accidents usually are considered newsworthy and immune from privacy claims.
Public figures, who voluntarily expose themselves to scrutiny, waive much of their right to privacy.
Corporations generally cannot claim a right to privacy; unlike the defamation tort, the right to privacy concerns the personal "right to be left alone" rather than reputation. Heirs cannot file suit on behalf of deceased people, although some states make exceptions for misappropriation claims.
If a subject does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, consent to have photographs taken and published is a defense to an invasion of privacy action.
In deciding whether to take and publish a questionable photograph, journalists must consider many factors. The following pages survey the privacy law of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, with emphasis on cases involving photography. In many states the courts have not addressed or resolved questions about the scope of privacy law. Many cases turn on subtle distinctions of fact, and could be decided either way. When in doubt, you should consult an attorney or call the Reporters Committees toll-free legal assistance hotline: 1-800-336-4243.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Notes
1 Even if a news organization arguably violates a subjects right to privacy, the subjects remedy usually will not include the ability to bar the publication of the picture. See CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 114 S.Ct. 912 (Blackmun, Circuit Justice 1994) (granting relief from injunction barring broadcast of surreptitious videotape of beef processing plant because of presumptive invalidity of prior restraints)
2 People also have a constitutional right to privacy that protects against invasions by the government. Journalists who act jointly with government officials could violate a persons constitutional privacy right. See, e.g., Ayeni v. CBS Inc., 848 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
3 Journalists conduct also may lead to other tort claims, such as trespass or the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4 Because the use of a celebritys likeness in advertising may imply endorsement, a celebrity whose likeness is used without consent may also have a claim under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. ?1125(a), which prohibits false descriptions of products or their origins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photographers Guide to Privacy
Fall 1999
The Reporters Committee is grateful to legal fellow Melissa Bartlett and legal intern Marit Bank for their work in researching and updating this guide. They built on the work of previous fellows and interns.
Editor: Nicki Ballinger
© 1999 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced without the written permission of the Reporters Committee.
The Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press
1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 807-2100
web: http://www.rcfp.org
e-mail: rcfp@rcfp.org
【轉】New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it
【轉自】USA Today 的Cyberspeak專欄
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
Posted 12/29/2005 7:46 PM
by Andrew Kantor
Digital cameras were one of the hot gifts these holidays — the first one for some people, an upgrade for others. Cell-phone cameras are everywhere too, and sites like Flickr and Buzznet — not to mention photoblogs — make it easy for anyone to share the zillions of photos they're taking.
With all these cameras snapping around us, I started to wonder about the laws regarding using them. Where can you shoot? What can you shoot?
A blogger I know shot a picture in an office building. One of the tenants had boxes of medical records sitting around in an unlocked office, visible from the hall. He published a picture of the boxes, which started a little brouhaha: He didn't have permission from the building's landlord, someone said, so he wasn't allowed to take or publish the photos.
That turns out not to be the case.
What I discovered is that a lot of people have ideas — often very clear ones — of what is legal and what isn't, based on anything from common sense to wishful thinking to "I always heard…"
Trouble is, they aren't always right. If you've got a digital camera and like to shoot in public, it pays to know the real deal.
So I went looking for it. I checked with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and found its Photographers' Guide to Privacy.
The Missouri Bar has a terrific Journalists' Right of Privacy Primer by attorney Mark Sableman.
Bert P. Krages, an attorney in Portland, Ore., and author of the Legal Handbook for Photographers, has a short but excellent PDF document called The Photographer's Right.
I also had e-mail conversations with both Mssrs. Sableman and Krages (who were both careful to point out that they were only speaking in general terms, and not offering legal advice).
Finally, I got some background from the American Law Institute's A Concise Restatement of Torts on the Harvard Law website.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer; in this case I'm a researcher. But lemme tell you: All these sources jibed, which I take to be a good sign. Just don't take this as legal advice; it's one columnist's researched understanding of the law.
If you can see it, you can shoot it
Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. There are some limits — using a zoom lens to shoot someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't covered — but no one can come charging out of a business and tell you not to take photos of the building, period.
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.
In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues — shooting and publishing — is important. We'll get to that in a moment.
You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.
Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.
Chances are you can publish it
Publishing photos has some different restraints, although they're civil, not criminal. Break one of these "rules" and, while you won't go to jail, you could find yourself on the short end of a lawsuit. (Although, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "the subject's remedy usually will not include the ability to bar the publication of the picture.")
Revealing private facts about someone is a no-no. As the American Law Institute put it, "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that A) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and B) is not of legitimate concern to the public."
Here the private property issue comes a bit more into play. Publishing a recognizable photo of someone at an AA meeting could be a problem, even if that meeting is open to the public. (An elected official, perhaps, but not of Joe Citizen.)
You also can find yourself in civil court if you publish a shot that places a person in a false light. That might be more of an issue with the caption than with the photo; running a shot of the mayor and his daughter labeled "Mayor meets with porn star" could land you in hot water. (Assuming his daughter isn't a porn star.)
Finally, you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose — using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK.
Risk factors
The fact that taking a photo and publishing it are separate things might go against some folks' common sense.
Let's say you're banned by the local mall for taking photos there, but you go back anyway and take more. Now you're trespassing. But unless the photos you take violate someone's expectation of privacy, your taking photos isn't illegal — only being there.
That said, if you're arrested and convicted, a judge might use the fact that you were taking photos to increase the penalty, but shooting on private property isn't a crime in and of itself. As one lawyer told me, "I don't see why the act of trespass would turn something that occurs during the trespass into a tort if it wasn't one already."
There are some other risks to taking and publishing 'problematic' photos. But, as you'll see, they're easy to avoid.
Trespassing is an obvious problem. If you're not supposed to be someplace — you see a sign or you're told by the property owner, for example — you can get arrested. Sure, you might be able to publish the photos you take, but Web access from jail is limited. (Trespassing is almost always a misdemeanor, by the way.)
You might be charged with your state's variation of intrusion — using technology (e.g., a long lens, hidden camera, or parabolic microphone) — to access a place where the subject has an expectation of privacy.
Beyond trespass, the major risks you run are civil, not criminal. You can lose an invasion of privacy lawsuit if your photographs reveal private facts about a person that are offensive and not newsworthy when the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ditto if they place the person in a false light, or inappropriately use the specific person's image for commercial purposes, e.g., stating that the mayor endorses a product by publishing a photo of him using it.
All of this should be good news for amateur and professional shutterbugs. Carry your camera, shoot to your heart's content, and know your rights — and your risks.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
Posted 12/29/2005 7:46 PM
by Andrew Kantor
Digital cameras were one of the hot gifts these holidays — the first one for some people, an upgrade for others. Cell-phone cameras are everywhere too, and sites like Flickr and Buzznet — not to mention photoblogs — make it easy for anyone to share the zillions of photos they're taking.
With all these cameras snapping around us, I started to wonder about the laws regarding using them. Where can you shoot? What can you shoot?
A blogger I know shot a picture in an office building. One of the tenants had boxes of medical records sitting around in an unlocked office, visible from the hall. He published a picture of the boxes, which started a little brouhaha: He didn't have permission from the building's landlord, someone said, so he wasn't allowed to take or publish the photos.
That turns out not to be the case.
What I discovered is that a lot of people have ideas — often very clear ones — of what is legal and what isn't, based on anything from common sense to wishful thinking to "I always heard…"
Trouble is, they aren't always right. If you've got a digital camera and like to shoot in public, it pays to know the real deal.
So I went looking for it. I checked with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and found its Photographers' Guide to Privacy.
The Missouri Bar has a terrific Journalists' Right of Privacy Primer by attorney Mark Sableman.
Bert P. Krages, an attorney in Portland, Ore., and author of the Legal Handbook for Photographers, has a short but excellent PDF document called The Photographer's Right.
I also had e-mail conversations with both Mssrs. Sableman and Krages (who were both careful to point out that they were only speaking in general terms, and not offering legal advice).
Finally, I got some background from the American Law Institute's A Concise Restatement of Torts on the Harvard Law website.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer; in this case I'm a researcher. But lemme tell you: All these sources jibed, which I take to be a good sign. Just don't take this as legal advice; it's one columnist's researched understanding of the law.
If you can see it, you can shoot it
Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. There are some limits — using a zoom lens to shoot someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't covered — but no one can come charging out of a business and tell you not to take photos of the building, period.
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.
In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues — shooting and publishing — is important. We'll get to that in a moment.
You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.
Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.
Chances are you can publish it
Publishing photos has some different restraints, although they're civil, not criminal. Break one of these "rules" and, while you won't go to jail, you could find yourself on the short end of a lawsuit. (Although, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "the subject's remedy usually will not include the ability to bar the publication of the picture.")
Revealing private facts about someone is a no-no. As the American Law Institute put it, "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that A) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and B) is not of legitimate concern to the public."
Here the private property issue comes a bit more into play. Publishing a recognizable photo of someone at an AA meeting could be a problem, even if that meeting is open to the public. (An elected official, perhaps, but not of Joe Citizen.)
You also can find yourself in civil court if you publish a shot that places a person in a false light. That might be more of an issue with the caption than with the photo; running a shot of the mayor and his daughter labeled "Mayor meets with porn star" could land you in hot water. (Assuming his daughter isn't a porn star.)
Finally, you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose — using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK.
Risk factors
The fact that taking a photo and publishing it are separate things might go against some folks' common sense.
Let's say you're banned by the local mall for taking photos there, but you go back anyway and take more. Now you're trespassing. But unless the photos you take violate someone's expectation of privacy, your taking photos isn't illegal — only being there.
That said, if you're arrested and convicted, a judge might use the fact that you were taking photos to increase the penalty, but shooting on private property isn't a crime in and of itself. As one lawyer told me, "I don't see why the act of trespass would turn something that occurs during the trespass into a tort if it wasn't one already."
There are some other risks to taking and publishing 'problematic' photos. But, as you'll see, they're easy to avoid.
Trespassing is an obvious problem. If you're not supposed to be someplace — you see a sign or you're told by the property owner, for example — you can get arrested. Sure, you might be able to publish the photos you take, but Web access from jail is limited. (Trespassing is almost always a misdemeanor, by the way.)
You might be charged with your state's variation of intrusion — using technology (e.g., a long lens, hidden camera, or parabolic microphone) — to access a place where the subject has an expectation of privacy.
Beyond trespass, the major risks you run are civil, not criminal. You can lose an invasion of privacy lawsuit if your photographs reveal private facts about a person that are offensive and not newsworthy when the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ditto if they place the person in a false light, or inappropriately use the specific person's image for commercial purposes, e.g., stating that the mayor endorses a product by publishing a photo of him using it.
All of this should be good news for amateur and professional shutterbugs. Carry your camera, shoot to your heart's content, and know your rights — and your risks.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
October 16, 2006
美國版的攝影人權備忘錄
美國律師Bert P. Krages寫了一本Legal Handbook for photographers的書。我沒翻過，不過，他的網站上倒是提供不少為攝影者人權釋疑的法律常識。他還做了一張可攜式的備忘錄，用ＰＤＦ檔掛在網上免費給人下載。可以參考看看。不過此法僅適用於美國。
在拍照時遭遇制止時你所需要知道的合法權利:
A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
備忘錄下載處 http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Krages律師的網站：http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
在拍照時遭遇制止時你所需要知道的合法權利:
A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
備忘錄下載處 http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Krages律師的網站：http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
【轉】Photographers Becoming Security Concerns
以下是轉自2005年6月16日 美國公共廣播電台ＮＰＲ的一段約七分多鐘的廣播，討論911以後攝影者在美國境內遭到警方過份干預甚至逮捕的例子。有興趣聽的人可以Copy/Paste這個link：javascript:getMedia('ME', '16-Jun-2005', '16', 'WM,RM');
不闇英聽的可以參考我聽寫下來的廣播內容。雖然名字的拼法不見得正確，但內文應該是沒問題的。
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4705698
Photographers Becoming Security Concerns
by Joel Rose
Morning Edition, June 16, 2005 •
Photographers across the country have complained of getting harassed by law enforcement officials citing security concerns since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Imagine you are on vacation. You take out your camera to snap a picture of the sun setting behind a bridge, and the next thing you know the police are asking for your ID. Since the September 11’s terrorists attack, amateur photographers across the country say they’ve been hassled and intimidated and even arrested for taking pictures on public property. Law enforcement officials say they are protecting potential target of terrorism.
Robert Chaney didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. Earlier this year, Chaney was standing on this public sidewalk near the Walt Whitman bridge.
Chaney: “…I was on the xx Avenue in Philadelphia; it’s sort of an industrial area on the Delaware River where there are various terminals for commerce…”
Chaney says he was interested in the patters that power lines made against overcast sky. He said he has been snapping pictures of them about 45 mins when a police officer drove up in a SUV.
Chaney: “She came up and said what are you doing? I told her that I was shooting these images with this old Polaroid camera for this art exhibition… At that point, she told me to stand against the vehicle, asked me to spread my legs…
Chaney says the officer took his camera and the pictures he had taken. After a few minutes, she gave him back the camera, but not the pictures.
Chaney : “I said: was this trespassing; it was the problem? She said it doesn’t have anything to do with that and have you been asleep for the last few years? Don’t you know about 911?
Chaney says the officer told him that he was standing near a chemical plant, a potential target of terrorism. But the laws concerning photography have not changed since Sep 11. Victor Proman(spelling?) is a general council of the American Society of Media Photographers, he says there is nothing in (a patriot) that or any other Homeland Security legislation that restrict the rights to take pictures from public property.
Victor: “If you are photographing something that is visible from a public space while on a public space, there are virtually no law that really prohibit that. The problems are with the rules, the problems are with either people not knowing the rules or not enforcing them properly.”
In Philadelphia, polices are trying to be sensitive to the rights of photographers, says the inspector Robert Takker. But he also says the photographers who are taking pictures near the bridges…or chemical plants, should expect polices to ask questions.
“would we like them not to photograph some sensitive infrastructures? I would, that would make our job a lot easier. But there are some beautiful photographs, we understand that. But with that understanding, know that we shall get the 911 call, and the officers would respond and ask reasonable questions, and you know what, your reason answers would lead to a positive interactions.”
It wasn’t a positive interaction for amateur photographer Bill Madeira. In June of 2002, he and his friends were taking pictures of an oil refinery in South Philadelphia at dusk.
Madeira: “A cop came along. We show him our IDs and he went away. And then about 15mins later, there was a helicopter and 4 squad cars and 10cops with their hands on their guns. When I asked what’s going on here? They said: don’t you know what’s happening in this country? And it’s illegal to take pictures of oil refinery. And I said: that’s not true, … they handcuff us and threw us in the back of different squad cars and held us for… close to mid-night without letting me call or charging us with anything.”
The local chafter(?) of ACLU filed a wrongful arrest suit on behave of Madeira and his friend, and he said that court giving them each $25, .... In December 2003, security guard stopped amateur photographer Jeffery Thorn for taking pictures outside of Federal office building in Portland, Oregon. Thorn said he was shooting the decorated ironwork on the building’s gate, “they surrounding me and told me that I couldn’t take pictures; it’s illegal to take pictures of this building, and then he need to do background check on me right away.”
That is their words—illegal? “Yah, they were under the impression that just taking the pictures of that federal structure from the public sidewalk was illegal.”
It’s not illegal photographing federal building except for classified military bases. Internet discussion groups are full of amateur photographers like Thorn, who claimed that they’ve been arrested or intimidated for taking pictures of bridges, trains, and federal office buildings. Victor Puroman(spelling?) of the American Society of Media Photographers says even the professional photographers are worry.
Victor: “before Sep.11th, we almost never got calls about photographers running no problems. Now I think routinely we hear reports on monthly bases or even more.”
Some are turning to the websites for attorney Kragus. Just before 911, he published a book call: Legal Rights of Photographers. After the attacks, he posted a one-page summery of photographers rights modeled on the ACLU’s bus cards. He said it has been downloaded more than 170000 times. He thinks photographers are running into a general fear of their medium.
“I think it’s more of a cultural fear than one that is based on reality. When you go and look at actual terrorist attacks and how they carry out, images had never played an important role.”
But the department of homeland security says photography has played the role of planning the terrorist attack. The HS spokesman Brian Worcathy(?) says the department has evidence that AlQuida used photography to study financial institution of New York City, near New Jersey and Washington DC.
“There’re intelligences that we know that AlQuida has conducted surveillance activities as one of the ways which they do so, to use photography.”
Worcathy says that the department of HS is trying to help local officials to understand the law, so they can balance the security and civil liberties.
“We provided a number of different items for guidance including terrorist reporting guide, things that give them guidance on how to determine what activities could or could not be suspicious based on what they know about their communities.”
Worcathy declined to share those threat guides. Ultimately, he says there is responsibility of federal states and local agencies to decide what is the real threat and what is not. But that may contribute to what Eugene Mapsick(?) calls “the crime/climate of inconsistent enforcement. Mapsick is the executive director of the American Society of Media Photographers, is also a former commercial photographer. Five years ago, Mapsick says most of his colleagues knew what they could/could not do.
“The problem is now, you are not sure when you are on the wrong spot or when you are photographing the wrong thing, because for one man perceive to be a threat is not necessary how you’d perceive the threat. That’s just so that obvious.”
As a result, Mapsick says today, there are some photographs he simply would not try to take.
不闇英聽的可以參考我聽寫下來的廣播內容。雖然名字的拼法不見得正確，但內文應該是沒問題的。
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4705698
Photographers Becoming Security Concerns
by Joel Rose
Morning Edition, June 16, 2005 •
Photographers across the country have complained of getting harassed by law enforcement officials citing security concerns since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Imagine you are on vacation. You take out your camera to snap a picture of the sun setting behind a bridge, and the next thing you know the police are asking for your ID. Since the September 11’s terrorists attack, amateur photographers across the country say they’ve been hassled and intimidated and even arrested for taking pictures on public property. Law enforcement officials say they are protecting potential target of terrorism.
Robert Chaney didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. Earlier this year, Chaney was standing on this public sidewalk near the Walt Whitman bridge.
Chaney: “…I was on the xx Avenue in Philadelphia; it’s sort of an industrial area on the Delaware River where there are various terminals for commerce…”
Chaney says he was interested in the patters that power lines made against overcast sky. He said he has been snapping pictures of them about 45 mins when a police officer drove up in a SUV.
Chaney: “She came up and said what are you doing? I told her that I was shooting these images with this old Polaroid camera for this art exhibition… At that point, she told me to stand against the vehicle, asked me to spread my legs…
Chaney says the officer took his camera and the pictures he had taken. After a few minutes, she gave him back the camera, but not the pictures.
Chaney : “I said: was this trespassing; it was the problem? She said it doesn’t have anything to do with that and have you been asleep for the last few years? Don’t you know about 911?
Chaney says the officer told him that he was standing near a chemical plant, a potential target of terrorism. But the laws concerning photography have not changed since Sep 11. Victor Proman(spelling?) is a general council of the American Society of Media Photographers, he says there is nothing in (a patriot) that or any other Homeland Security legislation that restrict the rights to take pictures from public property.
Victor: “If you are photographing something that is visible from a public space while on a public space, there are virtually no law that really prohibit that. The problems are with the rules, the problems are with either people not knowing the rules or not enforcing them properly.”
In Philadelphia, polices are trying to be sensitive to the rights of photographers, says the inspector Robert Takker. But he also says the photographers who are taking pictures near the bridges…or chemical plants, should expect polices to ask questions.
“would we like them not to photograph some sensitive infrastructures? I would, that would make our job a lot easier. But there are some beautiful photographs, we understand that. But with that understanding, know that we shall get the 911 call, and the officers would respond and ask reasonable questions, and you know what, your reason answers would lead to a positive interactions.”
It wasn’t a positive interaction for amateur photographer Bill Madeira. In June of 2002, he and his friends were taking pictures of an oil refinery in South Philadelphia at dusk.
Madeira: “A cop came along. We show him our IDs and he went away. And then about 15mins later, there was a helicopter and 4 squad cars and 10cops with their hands on their guns. When I asked what’s going on here? They said: don’t you know what’s happening in this country? And it’s illegal to take pictures of oil refinery. And I said: that’s not true, … they handcuff us and threw us in the back of different squad cars and held us for… close to mid-night without letting me call or charging us with anything.”
The local chafter(?) of ACLU filed a wrongful arrest suit on behave of Madeira and his friend, and he said that court giving them each $25, .... In December 2003, security guard stopped amateur photographer Jeffery Thorn for taking pictures outside of Federal office building in Portland, Oregon. Thorn said he was shooting the decorated ironwork on the building’s gate, “they surrounding me and told me that I couldn’t take pictures; it’s illegal to take pictures of this building, and then he need to do background check on me right away.”
That is their words—illegal? “Yah, they were under the impression that just taking the pictures of that federal structure from the public sidewalk was illegal.”
It’s not illegal photographing federal building except for classified military bases. Internet discussion groups are full of amateur photographers like Thorn, who claimed that they’ve been arrested or intimidated for taking pictures of bridges, trains, and federal office buildings. Victor Puroman(spelling?) of the American Society of Media Photographers says even the professional photographers are worry.
Victor: “before Sep.11th, we almost never got calls about photographers running no problems. Now I think routinely we hear reports on monthly bases or even more.”
Some are turning to the websites for attorney Kragus. Just before 911, he published a book call: Legal Rights of Photographers. After the attacks, he posted a one-page summery of photographers rights modeled on the ACLU’s bus cards. He said it has been downloaded more than 170000 times. He thinks photographers are running into a general fear of their medium.
“I think it’s more of a cultural fear than one that is based on reality. When you go and look at actual terrorist attacks and how they carry out, images had never played an important role.”
But the department of homeland security says photography has played the role of planning the terrorist attack. The HS spokesman Brian Worcathy(?) says the department has evidence that AlQuida used photography to study financial institution of New York City, near New Jersey and Washington DC.
“There’re intelligences that we know that AlQuida has conducted surveillance activities as one of the ways which they do so, to use photography.”
Worcathy says that the department of HS is trying to help local officials to understand the law, so they can balance the security and civil liberties.
“We provided a number of different items for guidance including terrorist reporting guide, things that give them guidance on how to determine what activities could or could not be suspicious based on what they know about their communities.”
Worcathy declined to share those threat guides. Ultimately, he says there is responsibility of federal states and local agencies to decide what is the real threat and what is not. But that may contribute to what Eugene Mapsick(?) calls “the crime/climate of inconsistent enforcement. Mapsick is the executive director of the American Society of Media Photographers, is also a former commercial photographer. Five years ago, Mapsick says most of his colleagues knew what they could/could not do.
“The problem is now, you are not sure when you are on the wrong spot or when you are photographing the wrong thing, because for one man perceive to be a threat is not necessary how you’d perceive the threat. That’s just so that obvious.”
As a result, Mapsick says today, there are some photographs he simply would not try to take.
![[Syndicate this site]](http://pics.yamedia.tw/images/rss2.gif "Syndicate RSS feed")
![[Syndicate this site]](http://pics.yamedia.tw/images/atom.gif "Syndicate ATOM feed")
