Are you on a fishing expedition or what ? Your exaggerations are so amusing, you are almost a caricature.
For one, it wasn't "some" techtopians, it was Larry Lessig. Second -- it wasn't a "flap" about it, it was a blog post. Hardly the fullforce grassroots blitzkreig you make it sound to be.
"storming the barricades" ? "smash the state" ?
You're killing me over here. Seriously...where do you get this material ? It's Jerry Seinfeld, right ?
You make it sound like there's a huge group of people out there whispering amongst themselves..."ssshhh, don't say anything...it's our beloved Barbara."
Here's some unsolicited and volunteered advice, Mr. Bennett:
The people who saw something about Starbucks on Larry's blog who went out to take pictures are most likely unaware of Streisand's current lawsuits, forget about caring about them enough to begin crusades. Hell, I'm sure about 90% of people would have no problem taking pictures defying coffeeshop manager's heeds just because their coffee sucks, not because they have some 'grand scheme' to bring down The Man.
Another piece of advice would be to maybe stop trying to inject sensation into what is a trivial, albeit interesting, piece of news, and try toning down the 'those crazy liberals!' rhetoric. You'll probably come across more sane that way. There *are* crazy liberals out there, go after the real ones, not the ones made up in your head.
ps. For the record, Professor Lessig has _never_ advocated pirating music, and in fact has publicly voiced his disgust about people who do. Reading is fundamental, Richard.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
The Starbucks flap made the rounds of the techtopian blogs, and wasn't confined to Lessig's, although he did get the bandwagon rolling.
Reading before writing is always a good thing.
sty
· 6 years ago
Even if it was on fifty blogs, that hardly diminishes your paranoid exaggeration. It's a mole hill, at best. And you complain that other media is sensationalizing....
Mark Buehner
· 6 years ago
If it had been Charleton Heston's estate do you think there would have been a bit more mass media coverage? The NYT would be lining up stringers from here to christmas to 'soak up the local flavor'.
Jeff Licquia
· 6 years ago
Since you cite BoingBoing as an example of people who advocate "pirating music and photographing Starbucks customers" while giving liberal divas a pass, it's only fair to point out that they do have a story on the Streisand suit. It's later than this one, but it's also more informative; it even includes a link to the controversial photograph.
It looks like it finally hit Instapundit's radar on Monday, so I suppose by your logic Glenn is more of a fascist than the music stealers at boingboing.
Eric Scheie
· 6 years ago
Lessig and Bennett absolutely right to sound the alarm about Starbucks' photography policy. The First Amendment is threatened by this and other ominous developments in the expanding Intellectual Property movement -- increasingly used to prevent people from even using ordinary words such as "Office." Twice now, I have been stopped by security guards from taking pictures of ordinary buildings. Too many people simply do as they're told, and I am delighted to see at least some defiance of these arrogant encroachments of our freedom. Defending free speech is NEVER, in my mind, "trivial."
Harry Eagar
· 6 years ago
Many businesses have always objected to having strangers take pictures on their oremises. I was stopped in a Neiman-Marcus 25 years ago, but I ignored them and took my picture.
There were not as many lawyers then, maybe.
Put Streisand's estate's mug on a T-shirt and sell it.
Just Some Poor Schmuck
· 6 years ago
There's no comparison between Streisand and Starbucks. One is a snobbish, hateful, rich business and the other is a coffee shop.
b.d.g.
· 6 years ago
The coda to this of course is that Starbucks denied having such a policy. Lessig or somebody in this chain of trivia pursuits could have saved a number of people a whole bunch of time if he simply had checked it out before ranting.
But the more important issue is this: Vigilance is the price of liberty, but hyperbole in defense of liberty is no virtue. Crying wolf over peripheral or even trivial concerns can only divert energy and focus from more serious matters.
I had no idea I have a constitutional right to enter a private establishment and snap photos (and my right supersedes the shopkeeper's right to set the rules in his own place). Is that a serious or even a legitimate issue? If that's our most pressing concern, then it must be morning in Ashcroft's America.
Lessig, by the way, has compared TSA screeners to goons in the former East Germany. (Look, there are way too many of them, and it's ridiculous that thanks to the Dems they're federal employees, but nobody can deny that on balance they're more professional than what preceded them. In any case, that analogy is irresponsibly nuts.)
So the morals of this tale are [a] fight about stuff that matters; and [b] don't by any means believe everything that's blogged. Calling the "techtopians" on this one is totally fair.
zazu
· 6 years ago
Last I looked, there were more than 250 stories about Streisand's lawsuit on Google news, most of them big time regular media sources. And it was covered on Slashdot. Doesn't seem to me like people have been "silent on the story".
Eye Opener
· 6 years ago
Agree with b.d.g. (upstream) about NOT having some 'right' to go into a privately owned place of public business and (do anything NOT permitted by the current management).
Also agree, however, with Eric (upstream) about having an implicit right to photograph the outsides of buildings, people, cars... THAT MUCH at least is presented TO WE THE PEOPLE, in a publicly accessible manner.
Such photography IS protected, and can be a real Eye Opener.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
Doesn't seem to me like people have been "silent on the story".
Right, but the point was that the people who were upset about Starbucks were silent on the story.
Sigivald
· 6 years ago
Eye Opener: Yeah, probably. As long, that is, as such photography doesn't involve trespass to get the shot.
And, well, photographing the outside of people is one thing... but what if they're not out in public, but, say, in their fenced back yard?
kellyds
· 6 years ago
My husband is a manager at Starbucks; without a doubt they have a policy of not allowing photographs in their stores. This is a security issue to them--they don't want potential whompheads to figure out where the best placement of bombs would be or where the manager's cubical is or how to best drag an employee off to rape her. They have a right to control the area where their employees work, for the safety of their profits and the safety of their employees. So go stuff it.
Juke
· 6 years ago
Eye Opener (and others) have it pretty much wrong: there is long-standing law in many localities prohibiting or restricting the right of photographers to take pictures of the exteriors of private homes and automobiles.
In an earlier incarnation as a professional photographer, it was made abundantly clear to me by a judge in the District of Columbia that I needed "model" releases for any picture that could positively identify an individual's home or auto. That's why license plates are pixillated when shown on TV unless absolutely germane to a news story (where a public interest defense applies).
So Streisand--as much as I loathe her--decides to use an existing law to her advantage... this isn't worth the electrons spent on the froth.
Ewin
· 6 years ago
Juke: so if the photos in question have little text boxes clearly stating "AIM HERE FOR STREISAND", then we have a problem?
Sorry, that's a really snide way of asking what constitutes positive identification.
clcook
· 6 years ago
Just happened to run into this page while looking for someone else. As a photographer who has to be aware of where it is legal to shoot pictures (or not), I thought I would mention that in the USA, a photographer in general can take photographs in any public place, or of anything that can be seen from a public place. Obvious exceptions would include shooting in someone's window, etc. The interior of a store, mall, etc, that is private property is not protected. So a Starbucks manager, or your local mall manager can legally restrict picture taking on their property. In general, they would not have the right to confiscate a camera.
The real problems can begin when the question of use of the pictures comes up. See your attorney or one of the excellent books concerning photography and law that are available.
s76fitz
· 6 years ago
88mm FLAK. WW 2 surplus. no more overflight problems. no concealed weapon permit needed. make shure you use a 10 round or less magazine to be politically correct.
Nobody
· 6 years ago
I can say it is true with first hand knowledge. It is not a compnay policy. It is misinformed or stupid mangers and employees. If you have an issue with a store mistreating you call the customer service number 800-782-7282. Complain about that store. They may get ?written up?.
All Comments
For one, it wasn't "some" techtopians, it was Larry Lessig. Second -- it wasn't a "flap" about it, it was a blog post. Hardly the fullforce grassroots blitzkreig you make it sound to be.
"storming the barricades" ?
"smash the state" ?
You're killing me over here. Seriously...where do you get this material ? It's Jerry Seinfeld, right ?
You make it sound like there's a huge group of people out there whispering amongst themselves..."ssshhh, don't say anything...it's our beloved Barbara."
Here's some unsolicited and volunteered advice, Mr. Bennett:
The people who saw something about Starbucks on Larry's blog who went out to take pictures are most likely unaware of Streisand's current lawsuits, forget about caring about them enough to begin crusades. Hell, I'm sure about 90% of people would have no problem taking pictures defying coffeeshop manager's heeds just because their coffee sucks, not because they have some 'grand scheme' to bring down The Man.
Another piece of advice would be to maybe stop trying to inject sensation into what is a trivial, albeit interesting, piece of news, and try toning down the 'those crazy liberals!' rhetoric. You'll probably come across more sane that way. There *are* crazy liberals out there, go after the real ones, not the ones made up in your head.
ps. For the record, Professor Lessig has _never_ advocated pirating music, and in fact has publicly voiced his disgust about people who do. Reading is fundamental, Richard.
Reading before writing is always a good thing.
http://boingboing.net/2003_06_01_archive.html#2...
strangers take pictures on their oremises. I was stopped in a Neiman-Marcus 25 years ago, but I ignored them and took my picture.
There were not as many lawyers then, maybe.
Put Streisand's estate's mug on a T-shirt and sell it.
But the more important issue is this: Vigilance is the price of liberty, but hyperbole in defense of liberty is no virtue. Crying wolf over peripheral or even trivial concerns can only divert energy and focus from more serious matters.
I had no idea I have a constitutional right to enter a private establishment and snap photos (and my right supersedes the shopkeeper's right to set the rules in his own place). Is that a serious or even a legitimate issue? If that's our most pressing concern, then it must be morning in Ashcroft's America.
Lessig, by the way, has compared TSA screeners to goons in the former East Germany. (Look, there are way too many of them, and it's ridiculous that thanks to the Dems they're federal employees, but nobody can deny that on balance they're more professional than what preceded them. In any case, that analogy is irresponsibly nuts.)
So the morals of this tale are [a] fight about stuff that matters; and [b] don't by any means believe everything that's blogged. Calling the "techtopians" on this one is totally fair.
Also agree, however, with Eric (upstream) about having an implicit right to photograph the outsides of buildings, people, cars... THAT MUCH at least is presented TO WE THE PEOPLE, in a publicly accessible manner.
Such photography IS protected, and can be a real Eye Opener.
Right, but the point was that the people who were upset about Starbucks were silent on the story.
And, well, photographing the outside of people is one thing... but what if they're not out in public, but, say, in their fenced back yard?
In an earlier incarnation as a professional photographer, it was made abundantly clear to me by a judge in the District of Columbia that I needed "model" releases for any picture that could positively identify an individual's home or auto. That's why license plates are pixillated when shown on TV unless absolutely germane to a news story (where a public interest defense applies).
So Streisand--as much as I loathe her--decides to use an existing law to her advantage... this isn't worth the electrons spent on the froth.
Sorry, that's a really snide way of asking what constitutes positive identification.
The real problems can begin when the question of use of the pictures comes up. See your attorney or one of the excellent books concerning photography and law that are available.
WW 2 surplus.
no more overflight problems.
no concealed weapon permit needed.
make shure you use a 10 round or less magazine
to be politically correct.