Before the morning. Late night Civic in pictures.

Spent 15 years driving cabs at night, the life cycle on the then Civic rank was interesting, the chucking and spewing would start about 2am, then about 5am, the cleaners would move in with their hoses and what nots. There was a servo and all night van opposite the Civic rank many moons ago, they would wander over there, get a hamburger, wander back and spew it out.

All a great waste.

The video has been removed ‘by the user’! I really wanted to watch that, I wonder if the metacrawlers grabbed it before it was deleted. Do you know of an alternate link by per chance Mr admin?

Disinformation said :

Erg0 said :

True enough, though the information in your link above does make me wonder whether the subjects of the posted photos could argue that their likeness is being used for promotional purposes without their consent. They’re probably not famous enough to make anything of it, in any case.

The definition of commercial purposes is quite definitive if you continue to read the references. These people appearing in a book or on a video, while in the public eye, can do nothing about it, nor file claims against the publishers or author. Fame has absolutely nothing to do with it. They’re not being used to endorse a product. Images of them ARE the product.

The misunderstanding on the legalities of public photography and the use of images are widespread. The laws are pretty clear but the ignorance is rather resilient.
Your chances of being in Civic for five minutes without being filmed by security cameras somewhere are incredibly slim. What can you do about it? Wear a burqua or stay home.

+1

That was my initial thought as well, but then I saw this example in the “What Is “Commercial Use”?” section of the abovementioned page:

“A photograph is published on a book or magazine cover. Commercial as the image is used to entice people to buy something, in this case the book or mag. (BTW this is why you almost never see candid-people photos used as magazine cover illustrations.)”

I’m wondering about the accuracy of this assessment, though, since there are obviously a number of gossip magazines that use nothing but candid photos on their covers. Could be that the finer points of the law have been skimmed over in order to give some general guidance.

Erg0 said :

True enough, though the information in your link above does make me wonder whether the subjects of the posted photos could argue that their likeness is being used for promotional purposes without their consent. They’re probably not famous enough to make anything of it, in any case.

The definition of commercial purposes is quite definitive if you continue to read the references. These people appearing in a book or on a video, while in the public eye, can do nothing about it, nor file claims against the publishers or author. Fame has absolutely nothing to do with it. They’re not being used to endorse a product. Images of them ARE the product.

The misunderstanding on the legalities of public photography and the use of images are widespread. The laws are pretty clear but the ignorance is rather resilient.
Your chances of being in Civic for five minutes without being filmed by security cameras somewhere are incredibly slim. What can you do about it? Wear a burqua or stay home.

Disinformation said :

It is quite legal to walk down the street in a public area (not on private property) and video or photograph people AND sell the video. There are no release forms required.

True enough, though the information in your link above does make me wonder whether the subjects of the posted photos could argue that their likeness is being used for promotional purposes without their consent. They’re probably not famous enough to make anything of it, in any case.

Disinformation said :

RobertRiley said :

Interesting video. I wonder what the ACT law says about photography without consent. Apparently it’s legal…

Do your research.
It isn’t, never has been and probably never will be.

Whoops. Need to edit that.
It’s NOT illegal to photograph people in public. That will teach me to skim read.

It is quite legal to walk down the street in a public area (not on private property) and video or photograph people AND sell the video. There are no release forms required.

RobertRiley said :

Interesting video. I wonder what the ACT law says about photography without consent. Apparently it’s legal…

You think it’s illegal to photograph people in public?

Disinformation said :

RobertRiley said :

Interesting video. I wonder what the ACT law says about photography without consent. Apparently it’s legal…

Do your research.
It isn’t, never has been and probably never will be.

Was he ordered to take it down? I wanted to see the drunken teenage girls fighting in the street or whatever, with no risk to myself.

RobertRiley said :

Interesting video. I wonder what the ACT law says about photography without consent. Apparently it’s legal…

Do your research.
It isn’t, never has been and probably never will be.