Grand Central Terminal NYC: Canon 5Dmk2

M

Mike Kobal

Well-known member
I like my new tool. I just had to have one after Canon announced the firmware update. all I can say about this camera. WOW
went for a walk in and around Grand Central Terminal in NYC, and this is what I got:
please check the top entry, hope you enjoy it-look forward hearing from you.
http://www.mikekobal.com/blog
thanks for looking.
cheers,
Mike
 
Yeah looks good, try doing that with a shoulder mount camera in Grand Central.
I wonder when people will catch on that these little cameras can do so much?
 
thanks dadoboy and mrmoe. na, rush hour, too many people, the trick is taking a small tripod with a pro head and being fast, when done, colapse the tripod and keep walking....
 
When you say "I can’t imagine movie mode without manual controls anymore" does that mean you won't be shooting video with the nikons anymore? I sold my D90 for a MKII and I can totally relate to that comment. Everything else about it appears to be an improvement over the D90 except 30p of-course.
 
squig, I think I will keep it for awhile still, the 30p vs 24p doesn't bother me, the canon files convert easily to 24p and can be slowed down to 24p to get a mild over crank effect. i hope Nikon gives us a manual control firmware update, soon! I find the nikon better in combination with the lensbabies, the 1.5 cropfactor helps, the lensbaby is too fuzzy on the 5D. I will try out the new panny gh1 when it becomes available, maybe the Nikon has to go after that. exciting times....
 
Mike Kobal said:
thanks dadoboy and mrmoe. na, rush hour, too many people, the trick is taking a small tripod with a pro head and being fast, when done, colapse the tripod and keep walking....
Click to expand...

This looks fantastic Mike, I've watched this 5 times now. When you say a small tripod with a pro head which one did you use?

Also, a harder question...do you feel any sensitivity to redistributing 'likenesses' without release or notification i.e. a sandwich board that states "If you walk in front of this camera you are consenting to the release of your image"

I bring this up because a few people I work with are getting antsy about this topic. I prefer your commando style personally but we have a litigious society.

Thank you for your great work.

CJW
 
thanks CJW. Gitzo magnesium head for medium format cameras. I have talked to two lawyers about this and there is no easy answer. Shot in public places, not used commercially in any way (aritistic purpose only) and no one gets ridiculed. It would be very hard for anyone to press charges and get results.
 
I've always thought that the main issue with filming people without their permission was invasion of privacy. Technically, those points that you mentioned would not matter; if somebody sued, they would have a case. The thing is that nobody would care. Only kooks are that sensitive.
 
But where are the damages? Sure, anybody can sue anyone for anything anytime but it's hard for me to imagine a court would consider Grand Central Terminal a "private" place.
 
mhood said:
But where are the damages? Sure, anybody can sue anyone for anything anytime but it's hard for me to imagine a court would consider Grand Central Terminal a "private" place.
Click to expand...

theres a website that deals with photographer legal issues. cant remember url just
now.

send them the vimeo link, see what there posters say.

{ I think the law may lean differently in different states, etc }
 
exactly. that's what I was being told, there is no straightforward answer to this question. It would depend on the individual (case), the judge (if it would ever get that far) etc etc
 
The rot set in with no-win-no-fee nonsense, encoureging the knuckle walkers to take a punt, just on the off chance
 
mhood said:
But where are the damages? Sure, anybody can sue anyone for anything anytime but it's hard for me to imagine a court would consider Grand Central Terminal a "private" place.
Click to expand...
You can get money from an invasion of privacy case even if you had no material damages. That's just the nature of privacy laws. Whether a setting is public or private doesn't really have a bearing on the matter. People have a right not to have their likenesses reproduced and distributed.

Imagine that you're on the street, taking pictures of random people. You post these pictures on a Web site. One of the pictures attracts the attention of a stalker, who uses it to commit a heinous crime. If the stalker hadn't seen the picture, perhaps he wouldn't have found the victim. And that's how the victim's privacy was invaded by the picture that you took.

That's the fear that some people (i.e. kooks) have. In order to preserve their anonymity and privacy, they refuse to allow any reproductions of their likenesses. Those are the people who would be litigious.

Remember that you aren't allowed to take pictures of a lot of government buildings, which are, of course, public property. There are many reasons, for it, security being one of them.
 
always BEST to get releases if someone can be identified, of course.

Although in this age of anything goes, I'm sure theres TONS of web stuff without it.

I wonder what Phillip Bloom did with SOPHIE'S PEOPLE?

He seemed to stress, everyone thought it was A STILL CAM. but if they signed a release, did they then know it was VID?
 
Last edited:
ydgmdlu said:
You can get money from an invasion of privacy case even if you had no material damages. That's just the nature of privacy laws. Whether a setting is public or private doesn't really have a bearing on the matter. People have a right not to have their likenesses reproduced and distributed.

Imagine that you're on the street, taking pictures of random people. You post these pictures on a Web site. One of the pictures attracts the attention of a stalker, who uses it to commit a heinous crime. If the stalker hadn't seen the picture, perhaps he wouldn't have found the victim. And that's how the victim's privacy was invaded by the picture that you took.

That's the fear that some people (i.e. kooks) have. In order to preserve their anonymity and privacy, they refuse to allow any reproductions of their likenesses. Those are the people who would be litigious.

Remember that you aren't allowed to take pictures of a lot of government buildings, which are, of course, public property. There are many reasons, for it, security being one of them.
Click to expand...

You are legally permitted to take pictures or videos of anyone in a public space, as long as it's not in a public space where a certain level of privacy is expected(such as public restrooms). Of course, if a person requests you not take or reproduce any photos/videos of them, you are legally obligated to do so.

Also, the laws about government buildings/facilities are largely on an "it depends" basis. You can take pictures of any facility/building that is readily viewable from a public space like a sidewalk, a bridge, or any other public area. This changes, of course, if the building contains explosives, is a military base, or if you're taking photos of a section of a building that can't be seen from a public space and requires special equipment to be viewed.
 
this is not a grey area. not due to privacy, which CAN be a grey area, however, for two other reasons. first, filming in grand central not allowed by the mta and the moftb. second, grand central is copyright protected, just like the bull at wall street and the lions at the gate of the library. i am in the process of installing a 30 foot keith haring art wall owned by a gallery in times square, and despite the fact that it is privately owned, i need permission from the keith haring foundation to film it in a public place because they own copyright on its image, representation, reproduction, and likeness. enforcement and the size of the violation are two other issues. whether or not you get a ticket for going a few miles an hour over the speed limit is a separate discussion from whether you are speeding, and whether its against the law. aka, you can probably get away with filming in places like grand central, as long as you are not doing anything substantial, but that doesn't change the legitimacy. there are many famous art legal cases regarding this issue that have arisen from the question of whether a photo of a photo of child pornography can be considered art in the sense that it was "displayed for condemnation." google gary gross and brook shields to see the limits of reproducing copyrighted work...... gary took a photo of a naked child photo of brook "to protest" the photo.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top