The point at which the Sun is highest in the sky would be noon, and at its lowest point, midnight.
Watch the video again and you'll notice that midnight occurs every day when the sun is just above the mountain range in the distance. A little further South and you would actually see a sunset and sunrise.
Arthur Levinson looks like an unassuming, everyday guy that you might play golf with; somebody who tells silly jokes but gets a laugh anyway because of his casual demeanor.
On the other hand, Steve Odland looks like a tax auditor who actually feels physical pain whenever he smiles; the sort of person you never invite to a party because he sucks the happiness out of everyone around him. He looks almost mechanical.
Actually Johnny Cat, it is perfectly legal to photograph someone in public and use that image for commercial purposes (although there are some caveats). Remember, journalists and the mainstream media do this every single day.
Consent is not required if the subject is photographed in a setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Publishing the photo, and then adding a disparaging narrative about the subject of the photo doesn't make it any less legal, provided the narrative doesn't constitute libel or defamation of character. This particular book would clearly be defined as humor or satire, and that is protected free speech.
For a long list of examples of random people being publicly ridiculed, see Vice magazine (often NSFW). http://www.viceland.com/int/dos.php
For reference, Bert Krages is an attorney, writer, and photographer who authored a comprehensive list of photographer's rights dealing with this and related issues. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
The next time, you see a published photograph of a suspected criminal being hauled into court, or a nightlife magazine with a snapshot of somebody doing something embarrassing at a club, rest assured he or she didn't sign a consent form. And it is very much legal.
$2.59 for regular at a Murphy's/Wal Mart in Harlingen, TX.
I still think it's bizarre that anything under $3.00 is now widely considered a good price for a gallon of gasoline (in the U.S. at least). It was less than half that eight years ago.
The article says that after she hired an attorney, the city withdrew its demand.
Nevertheless, the fact that anyone in any government agency, be it federal, state, or municipal, believes that they have the authority to issue such a demand speaks volumes about how little these people understand the Internet or for that matter, the Bill of Rights.
The city attorney could have spent five minutes with Google and determined that there was absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about the link. Instead, the city wasted time and resources, ultimately launching a police investigation against this woman. Truly sad.
Every city employee who took part in this act of shameless ignorance should issue a formal apology.
And although many may consider it frivolous, I would really like to see her lawsuit move forward, and have the the city and the police department held publicly accountable for their actions.
Whether people realize it or not, this sort of poor judgment has far reaching implications, not the least of which is our right to free speech. If the very people responsible for protecting us do not understand our rights, then how can they be trusted to defend them?
The point at which the Sun is highest in the sky would be noon, and at its lowest point, midnight.
Watch the video again and you'll notice that midnight occurs every day when the sun is just above the mountain range in the distance. A little further South and you would actually see a sunset and sunrise.
On the other hand, Steve Odland looks like a tax auditor who actually feels physical pain whenever he smiles; the sort of person you never invite to a party because he sucks the happiness out of everyone around him. He looks almost mechanical.
Consent is not required if the subject is photographed in a setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Publishing the photo, and then adding a disparaging narrative about the subject of the photo doesn't make it any less legal, provided the narrative doesn't constitute libel or defamation of character. This particular book would clearly be defined as humor or satire, and that is protected free speech.
For a long list of examples of random people being publicly ridiculed, see Vice magazine (often NSFW).
http://www.viceland.com/int/dos.php
For reference, Bert Krages is an attorney, writer, and photographer who authored a comprehensive list of photographer's rights dealing with this and related issues.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
The next time, you see a published photograph of a suspected criminal being hauled into court, or a nightlife magazine with a snapshot of somebody doing something embarrassing at a club, rest assured he or she didn't sign a consent form. And it is very much legal.
Nevertheless, his message is grossly misguided. It's like a one-car parade of ignorance.
I still think it's bizarre that anything under $3.00 is now widely considered a good price for a gallon of gasoline (in the U.S. at least). It was less than half that eight years ago.
Nevertheless, the fact that anyone in any government agency, be it federal, state, or municipal, believes that they have the authority to issue such a demand speaks volumes about how little these people understand the Internet or for that matter, the Bill of Rights.
The city attorney could have spent five minutes with Google and determined that there was absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about the link. Instead, the city wasted time and resources, ultimately launching a police investigation against this woman. Truly sad.
Every city employee who took part in this act of shameless ignorance should issue a formal apology.
And although many may consider it frivolous, I would really like to see her lawsuit move forward, and have the the city and the police department held publicly accountable for their actions.
Whether people realize it or not, this sort of poor judgment has far reaching implications, not the least of which is our right to free speech. If the very people responsible for protecting us do not understand our rights, then how can they be trusted to defend them?