c*****t
发帖数: 10738 | 1 美国可以么？中国可以么？很好奇，不想有一天不小心在哪里被专政了。 |
j*****p
发帖数: 24000 | |
y****e
发帖数: 23939 | |
y*h
发帖数: 25423 | 4 在美国是明确可以的，只要那个地方是public的而不是私人的。中国嘛，你懂的。
【在 c*****t 的大作中提到】
: 美国可以么？中国可以么？很好奇，不想有一天不小心在哪里被专政了。
|
N***m
发帖数: 4460 | 5 最后一句话太意味深长了
【在 y*h 的大作中提到】
: 在美国是明确可以的，只要那个地方是public的而不是私人的。中国嘛，你懂的。
|
c*****t
发帖数: 10738 | 6 狗仔队从街上拍明星house里面合法么?
【在 y*h 的大作中提到】
: 在美国是明确可以的，只要那个地方是public的而不是私人的。中国嘛，你懂的。
|
j*****p
发帖数: 24000 | 7 我记得是合法的，任何从公众位置拍摄到的就不算违法，所以狗仔队才会用直升机拍明
星。
以前我玩街拍，去咨询过律师，律师说纽约是可以随意街拍的，也可以公布到网上。
【在 c*****t 的大作中提到】
: 狗仔队从街上拍明星house里面合法么?
|
N***m
发帖数: 4460 | 8 能不能用于商业用途？
【在 j*****p 的大作中提到】
: 我记得是合法的，任何从公众位置拍摄到的就不算违法，所以狗仔队才会用直升机拍明
: 星。
: 以前我玩街拍，去咨询过律师，律师说纽约是可以随意街拍的，也可以公布到网上。
|
h********n
发帖数: 1671 | 9 有可以照的，有不可以照的。关键是警察不让你照的时候要听警察的，哪个国家都一样。
交通规则里也是现场指挥的警察最大。路口明明是绿灯，警察不让你走，你跟他讲路权
、讲法制？ |
j*****p
发帖数: 24000 | 10 当然可以，不然那么多八卦杂志怎么活
【在 N***m 的大作中提到】
: 能不能用于商业用途？
|
|
|
m**********n
发帖数: 27535 | 11 你去没去过中国？
【在 c*****t 的大作中提到】
: 美国可以么？中国可以么？很好奇，不想有一天不小心在哪里被专政了。
|
c*****t
发帖数: 10738 | 12 交通法规里明确有说警察可以override红绿灯啊。哪条法规说了警察可以说哪里不能照
相哪里可以照？
样。
【在 h********n 的大作中提到】
: 有可以照的，有不可以照的。关键是警察不让你照的时候要听警察的，哪个国家都一样。
: 交通规则里也是现场指挥的警察最大。路口明明是绿灯，警察不让你走，你跟他讲路权
: 、讲法制？
|
p**p
发帖数: 10318 | 13 几个大桥现在可以了么？
不过听话的不多啊，很多游客想那里拍还是拍的。
【在 j*****p 的大作中提到】
: 我又去查了，纽约地铁是可以拍照的
: 特此更正
|
g*********r
发帖数: 9366 | 14 警察的指挥，一般是在他们指责范围内的
他们一般不管指责范围以外的事情
【在 c*****t 的大作中提到】
: 交通法规里明确有说警察可以override红绿灯啊。哪条法规说了警察可以说哪里不能照
: 相哪里可以照？
:
: 样。
|
N***m
发帖数: 4460 | 15 老是看到明显脸被放到广告上被告到法庭上。
都是搞商业，差别为啥这么大呢
【在 j*****p 的大作中提到】
: 当然可以，不然那么多八卦杂志怎么活
|
h********n
发帖数: 1671 | 16 那在火车站，警察让你排队，你也要问哪条法规说了警察可以说哪里要排队哪里不要排
队吗？
【在 c*****t 的大作中提到】
: 交通法规里明确有说警察可以override红绿灯啊。哪条法规说了警察可以说哪里不能照
: 相哪里可以照？
:
: 样。
|
c*****t
发帖数: 10738 | 17 放狗查了一下。US law about this subject: Photographer's Right,
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
"The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that
commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific
areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S.
Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear
facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are
usually not designated as such. Members of the public have a very limited
scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone
can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded
themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy
such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their
homes." |
s*******t
发帖数: 838 | 18 所以五毛屁民有要好好听警察叔叔的话。其他人就自己看着办。 |
s*****r
发帖数: 11545 | 19 照相不是基本权利, 管理部门可以以任何合理理由加以制止, 立法机关也可以通过立法
禁止. 例如, 你一WSN 贼眉鼠眼的在安检处拍照, 或者在重要建筑处踩点, 警察可以制
止你的WS行为. |
L*****s
发帖数: 6046 | 20 看过一个专门的法律电视节目，公共场所要分两种，敞开的，比如街道，马路上，没有隐私
权。 封闭的公共场所，如室内咖啡馆，宾馆大厅，别人选择那里就有隐私的考虑，拍
就侵犯隐私了。
另外公务人员执行公务时可以要求不许拍照，哪怕是街上。 |
|
|
x*********g
发帖数: 11508 | |
c***c
发帖数: 21374 | 22 我们这地方最近几年我印象里有这个事情
January 10, 2008
Channel M is preparing to file a complaint against the Vancouver police
department after officers detained a camera operator for the multicultural
television station who was at the scene of a police shooting last month and
seized his videotape.
In a phone interview on January 2, Channel M news director Dianne Collins
said that with the help of counsel, the station is putting together a letter
to be filed with B.C.’s Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.
“Our position is the same as any news organization where its employees are
basically being detained—and not lawfully detained—and they’ve been
prevented from doing their job, and that is not acceptable,” Collins told
the Georgia Straight.
Collins said station management will also seek to discuss the incident—
which saw camera operator Ricky Tong detained for a few hours and his tape
of the aftermath of a police shooting seized—with Vancouver police chief
Jim Chu.
“It’s interesting that the police just acted in a heavy-handed manner in
this case,” Collins said. “There was no need for that. We’re not
obstructing the course of justice.”
Const. Tim Fanning, a VPD spokesperson, recalled that he was at the scene,
and he claimed that everything worked out well for both parties.
“We reviewed the tape with the investigators, and they [Channel M] gave us
a copy of the tape, and they had their copy, and we went on our way,”
Fanning told the Straight. “But otherwise we spoke with them at the scene,
and they were cooperative. Obviously, they were concerned; they want to make
sure they had their tape, and we’re happy to give them their tape. We just
wanted to make sure that there was nothing on there of evidentiary value.”
Fanning denied that the police were heavy-handed in dealing with Channel M.
“I didn’t see any problems,” he said. “Maybe they got a different
impression before I got there; I don’t know. If you’re asking me if there
’s any heavy-handedness, I’ll tell you there wasn’t at all, not from what
I saw.”
On the afternoon of December 10, 2007, Tong was driving past the Shell
gasoline station at the corner of 41st Avenue and Knight Street on the way
to an assignment when he heard gunshots.
Tong turned around, parked the station’s vehicle nearby, and started
filming. When police asked Tong to surrender his tape to them, he refused.
Tong was declared a witness by the police, and he was escorted to a
commandeered bus where other witnesses were also taken.
Tong has been with Channel M since the station launched in 2003. In a brief
phone interview with the Straight, Tong said that the police shouldn’t have
detained him. “In a way, they stopped my filming,” he said.
Reuben Simeon Coleman, 21, a Lower Mainland man, was killed in an exchange
of gunfire with a lone police officer at the gas station, according to the
VPD.
Channel M dispatched a team to the scene for live broadcasts of the
aftermath of the shooting incident. Bhupinder Hundal, the assignment
coordinator and a producer at the station, was able to negotiate with the
police for Tong’s release. A copy of Tong’s video was transmitted from
Channel M’s microwave van at the scene to the station’s headquarters in
Chinatown before the tape was handed over to the police.
Collins said it wasn’t the first time the station has been told by the VPD
to turn over a videotape. On all previous occasions, Channel M turned down
such requests, thereby compelling police to seek warrants. Collins noted
that getting an order from the court is the proper procedure.
“All they have to do is get a subpoena, and we’re happy to cooperate with
them,” Collins said. “But to do what they did, saying at that point—when
Ricky [Tong] said no, he wouldn’t give them the tape—that he was a witness
. I mean, he wasn’t a witness. He didn’t see the actual shooting.”
Police watchdog Rider Cooey has closely followed the aftermath of Channel M
’s encounter with the VPD. He intends to raise the matter at the Wednesday
(January 16) meeting of the police board chaired by Vancouver mayor Sam
Sullivan.
“The police board needs to ask the police department to conduct a review of
their policy regarding detention of media representatives and their tapes
or images or notes and their material,” Cooey told the Straight.
Collins said that it’s important in a free society for media to work in an
independent manner. “All we ask is that our rights are respected as much as
we respect the right of the police to do their job,” she said. |
c***c
发帖数: 21374 | 23 昨天又有这个：
When David Eby stopped his bicycle to catch a glimpse of two police officers
searching a camper Saturday, he never thought it would land him in hot
water.
But when all was said and done, the executive director of the B.C. Civil
Liberties Association ended up with a $100 ticket and a sense that cops don
’t like being watched.
“The message was pretty clear — ‘mind your own business,’” said Eby. “
It was intimidation, they didn’t like that I was watching them do their job
.”
The incident began when Eby, coming home from a shopping trip that afternoon
, noticed two officers searching a camper and knocking on the door.
The practising lawyer found it odd that the Vancouver police officers were
writing on the camper with a pen and paying so much attention to it, so he
decided to stop his bike and watch from the side of the road.
Before long, the officers’ attention turned to him.
“They were asking me if I knew the man, what I was doing and asked for my
driver’s licence,” Eby recalled. “I said I didn’t need to identify
myself and then he said there’s no bell on my bike and that he was going to
write me a ticket. I was like, ‘Here we go.’
“Somewhere between using my rights and witnessing what they were doing, it
landed me a $100 ticket.”
Eby intends to pay the ticket, but is more worried about the message being
sent to law-abiding citizens.
“I hope this isn’t something that occurs often,” he said. “Police should
encourage the public by being more transparent.” |
S***a
发帖数: 3956 | 24 美国机场安检处是肯定不让照的.本wsn曾被警察劝阻过.... |
y*h
发帖数: 25423 | 25 那是怕照了照片仔细研究能发现安检的漏洞，所以不让拍。不是怕你拍到什么人
或者领导。
【在 S***a 的大作中提到】
: 美国机场安检处是肯定不让照的.本wsn曾被警察劝阻过....
|
S***a
发帖数: 3956 | 26 拍了领导跟其保镖的照片同样可以用来研究保安系统的漏洞.对刺客来讲这是很有用的
信息.
【在 y*h 的大作中提到】
: 那是怕照了照片仔细研究能发现安检的漏洞，所以不让拍。不是怕你拍到什么人
: 或者领导。
|
y*h
发帖数: 25423 | 27 那先把CCTV李瑞英一伙给禁了吧，每次拍得那叫一个细。
【在 S***a 的大作中提到】
: 拍了领导跟其保镖的照片同样可以用来研究保安系统的漏洞.对刺客来讲这是很有用的
: 信息.
|
S***a
发帖数: 3956 | 28 打过招呼的拍摄跟无防备的拍摄是一回事么?
【在 y*h 的大作中提到】
: 那先把CCTV李瑞英一伙给禁了吧，每次拍得那叫一个细。
|
y*****r
发帖数: 1295 | 29 一般而言，名人的不可以。比如路上拍个姚明，显然不能放在自己产品上当广告。但是
一般人，就可以。例如有个纽约的摄影师，搞个自动拍摄装置，拍了很多路人，然后选
出一张，当作作品，被博物馆收藏，卖了不少钱。被拍摄人官司到底，连钱都不要，就
是要照片，最后还是输了。
当然卖给博物馆，和打广告还是有点区别，虽然是很明显的披着艺术外衣的商业行为。
【在 N***m 的大作中提到】
: 能不能用于商业用途？
|
r***e
发帖数: 2000 | 30
样。
马里兰去年的案子，法官裁定警察在公有土体上执行公务的时候
无权阻止民众录音录像。
【在 h********n 的大作中提到】
: 有可以照的，有不可以照的。关键是警察不让你照的时候要听警察的，哪个国家都一样。
: 交通规则里也是现场指挥的警察最大。路口明明是绿灯，警察不让你走，你跟他讲路权
: 、讲法制？
|
|
|
l**m
发帖数: 5113 | 31 我觉得拍照如果不侵犯对方的隐私权，商业利益和国家利益等就可以。
比如你去商家门口拍照，肯定会被制止，因为人家可能怀疑你是商业间谍。
如果你在大马路上拍，被拍的人可以拒绝，如果你散布照片人家会告你。
比如北大女这个，如果公务人员是在正常的执行公务，我觉得她不能拍。但是如果她是
在揭发腐败贪污行为可以拍。。。。
【在 c*****t 的大作中提到】
: 美国可以么？中国可以么？很好奇，不想有一天不小心在哪里被专政了。
|
y*h
发帖数: 25423 | 32 在中国没有明确的法律规定到底能不能拍，所以能不能拍取决于运气。
美国有判例即使是执行公务，只要是在公共场合在public property上面
公民都是有权利拍摄的，至于普通过路的路人、明星、政客什么的那就更
可以随便拍了。商店里可以不让你拍那是因为那是private property。
【在 l**m 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得拍照如果不侵犯对方的隐私权，商业利益和国家利益等就可以。
: 比如你去商家门口拍照，肯定会被制止，因为人家可能怀疑你是商业间谍。
: 如果你在大马路上拍，被拍的人可以拒绝，如果你散布照片人家会告你。
: 比如北大女这个，如果公务人员是在正常的执行公务，我觉得她不能拍。但是如果她是
: 在揭发腐败贪污行为可以拍。。。。
|
s**********d
发帖数: 36899 | 33
你错了，是因为博物馆收藏不是因为非名人。
商业目的都不行，摄影师必须让能辨认的人sign model release.
新闻、艺术品都可以，名不名人没有关系。
【在 y*****r 的大作中提到】
: 一般而言，名人的不可以。比如路上拍个姚明，显然不能放在自己产品上当广告。但是
: 一般人，就可以。例如有个纽约的摄影师，搞个自动拍摄装置，拍了很多路人，然后选
: 出一张，当作作品，被博物馆收藏，卖了不少钱。被拍摄人官司到底，连钱都不要，就
: 是要照片，最后还是输了。
: 当然卖给博物馆，和打广告还是有点区别，虽然是很明显的披着艺术外衣的商业行为。
|
s**********d
发帖数: 36899 | 34 你“觉得”的，是错的。
【在 l**m 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得拍照如果不侵犯对方的隐私权，商业利益和国家利益等就可以。
: 比如你去商家门口拍照，肯定会被制止，因为人家可能怀疑你是商业间谍。
: 如果你在大马路上拍，被拍的人可以拒绝，如果你散布照片人家会告你。
: 比如北大女这个，如果公务人员是在正常的执行公务，我觉得她不能拍。但是如果她是
: 在揭发腐败贪污行为可以拍。。。。
|
r***e
发帖数: 2000 | 35
State of Maryland v. Anthony John Graber III
in the circuit court for Harford County, 12-K-10-0647
"Police can have no reasonable expectation of privacy...,
performing his official duties on a public thoroughfare.."
【在 L*****s 的大作中提到】
: 看过一个专门的法律电视节目，公共场所要分两种，敞开的，比如街道，马路上，没有隐私
: 权。 封闭的公共场所，如室内咖啡馆，宾馆大厅，别人选择那里就有隐私的考虑，拍
: 就侵犯隐私了。
: 另外公务人员执行公务时可以要求不许拍照，哪怕是街上。
|
z******i
发帖数: 721 | 36 You are with the concept of "公共场所". A public place means the property
is owned by public, ie belongs to the city, county, state or federal. But
not all public properties is open to public. Unlawful entry is prohibited,
for example, certain military facilities, public facilities are closed to
public etc.
"室内咖啡馆，宾馆大厅 etc" are private properties, although they serve the
public. If you are declared not welcome there and you still enter, the owner
can call the police to arrest you for "trespassing".
有隐私
【在 L*****s 的大作中提到】
: 看过一个专门的法律电视节目，公共场所要分两种，敞开的，比如街道，马路上，没有隐私
: 权。 封闭的公共场所，如室内咖啡馆，宾馆大厅，别人选择那里就有隐私的考虑，拍
: 就侵犯隐私了。
: 另外公务人员执行公务时可以要求不许拍照，哪怕是街上。
|
j*****p
发帖数: 24000 | 37 大桥应该可以吧
我天天看见大把游客在拍
【在 p**p 的大作中提到】
: 几个大桥现在可以了么？
: 不过听话的不多啊，很多游客想那里拍还是拍的。
|
l**m
发帖数: 5113 | 38 热烈欢迎你拿出各国的法律和判例来说话
咱们都来跟你学学法~~~~~
呵呵
【在 s**********d 的大作中提到】
: 你“觉得”的，是错的。
|
a****e
发帖数: 1247 | 39 按照伊拉克的案子，美国解放军执行公务的时候，也是不可以照相的。
【在 r***e 的大作中提到】
:
: State of Maryland v. Anthony John Graber III
: in the circuit court for Harford County, 12-K-10-0647
: "Police can have no reasonable expectation of privacy...,
: performing his official duties on a public thoroughfare.."
|
h****i
发帖数: 1674 | 40 根据讨论，这个执行公务能否被拍照似乎还在争议中。我国至少没有看到相关的案件，
也找不到明白的条文法规，也没有法院的判决。事情是相当的有争议。 |
|
|
y*****r
发帖数: 1295 | 41 你这个说的太绝对了吧。（以下讨论基于美国）
一个简单事实就是摄影者依然有办法在被摄者不同意的情况下，通过卖被摄者的照片挣钱，比如披上艺术外衣。
这个案例本身解读是一会事，先不说艺术外衣的效果在那个案例里有多重要（你显然认
为艺术在那个案子里很重要）。那个案子最后搞到宪法高度了，被摄者在输掉N个论战
后，最后说自己宗教信仰不能拍照，这是他的宗教信仰自由。换句话说，其他律师恐怕
也找不出什么其它花样的理论来翻案了。你这里灌水能想到的理由，那个家伙或者是他
的律师，必定尝试过了。
抛开案子不谈，随便问一下，你怎么定义艺术？博物馆收买就叫艺术？如果个人买呢？
复制N个，给N家博物馆呢？大量复制，在各地画廊卖呢？海量复制，在旅游景点便宜卖
呢？在明信片上卖，在网上卖白菜价卖呢？你总不能定义复制份数越多，就越不艺术吧
。现在事实是博物馆显然可以海量复制那个照片，卖给游客，没有任何问题。（我甚至
认为可以把照片卖给可口可乐，给它做广告，也没有问题，被拍摄者没有任何办法阻止
或得到一分钱。关于这一点，我自己存疑。自己业余搞搞，懒得google去了。）
明明用照片卖了钱了，无论照片有没有艺术价值，无论卖出几张，你总不能否认买卖行
为是纯粹商业行为吧。
我原帖里说了，如果再进一步，把人像贴在商品上，或放在商业广告里，赤裸裸的挣钱
，恐怕不行。但你这个简单化的一句“商业目的都不行”显然不对 - 总之，摄影者依
然有办法在被摄者不同意的情况下，通过卖被摄者的照片挣钱。
【在 s**********d 的大作中提到】
: 你“觉得”的，是错的。
|
y*****r
发帖数: 1295 | 42 牵涉到军队，就和警察差很多了。911时，现场士兵也不让人拍照。军事基地，外观都
不准拍，哪怕拍摄者站在非军事基地上。
【在 a****e 的大作中提到】
: 按照伊拉克的案子，美国解放军执行公务的时候，也是不可以照相的。
|
