Man accused of photographing children in park

Subject: Re: Man accused of photographing children in park

sterling2000 wrote: Couldn't happen here, could it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html

People are nuts....

Obviously he was up to no good seeing as that he is "a consultant for a rubber manufacturer."

Nope, not here:

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/26/31_26_whats_wrong_with_this.html

Awesome name. Not as good as my porn star name, however.

Kikintina wrote: Nope, not here:

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/26/31_26_whats_wrong_with_this.html

I never heard of that parks department rule before, I was under the impression that unless you plan on using the pictures for commerical pruposes which means you have to get a release signed, I'm pretty sure if you are in a public space you can photograph anything and anyone you want without restriction. Also, there was a video voyuerism law that was passed a few years ago which I believe outlaws pictures that focus only on the private parts of another person.

From Parks department website:
What are the rules regarding personal photography in parks?
The Parks Department does not regulate photography in our parks unless it is for commercial purposes. However, we ask that you take care when placing tripods to prevent damage to horticultural areas. If you are photographing a special event, please review the permit process here. For media coverage, film production, and photography in New York City’s parks, please review the rules and regulations here.

sweet tea wrote: i'm just gonna put this out there:

the kid in that last story is named

severine mcqueeney

What does it matter that the little girl's name is Severine McQueeney?

Subject: Intervening the wrong way

As I understand NY law, there are no privacy torts (except for the tort of appropriation, which is the use of someone’s name or picture for commercial use). There are obviously some criminal statutes to protect against menacing and such, but under the 1st amendment, you can basically take photos and video of any public space. When you hear that the police have stopped someone from taking photos of public spaces, including the people within, it usually means they will lose when they get to court. And if you are taking pictures for newsworthy purposes, it's protected even more ...

Having said that, we all need to keep a watchful eye for perverts and scum, for our neighbors, and their children. They are definitely out there, and I am sure on some level this person was trying to do good. However, I believe this person should have talked to the man before accusing him of being a deviant. Some people just don't know how to live symbiotically in Brooklyn. Don't be afraid to intervene, but do it responsibly, so you don't end up in a newspaper looking like a total #%@*!!! (You know what I mean;)

The reason UK dude took flak is simply because his wife might be nordic and as such, he shouldnt have been with her ...so those couldnt have possibly been his kids.