crossing borders project: First Roll Images - Portland Rescue Mission Workshop

crossing borders project: First Roll Images - Portland Rescue Mission Workshop

crossing borders project: Portland Rescue Mission History and Participants

crossing borders project: Portland Rescue Mission History and Participants

crossing borders project: 4 Days Left - Portland's Homeless Project

crossing borders project: 4 Days Left - Portland's Homeless Project

crossing borders project: On the Streets in Portland, Oregon

crossing borders project: On the Streets in Portland, Oregon

Bad news with Getty and IStock Photos

I was really disappointed with Getty and istock when I read this article.  It is a reminder to make sure that we read ALL of the fine print for stock photo and agency contracts.  Remember instagram?  Photographers beware.  We work hard to build up our photography portfolio costing us years and years in development, not to mention the prices of our equipment, gathering model release forms, archiving.  We cannot allow these agencies to take our work and sell them for pennies then drop us like we never existed.

No matter how hard it is for us to compete with the cell phone point and shooters, we must hold strong and keep our art at top value.

Reposted from PhotoStockNotes

Lauren Margolis: “Earlier last month, we learned that Getty agreed to license some 5,000 stock photos to Google, and paid the image creators a one-time fee of $12. Many members of the Microstockgroup forums planned to deactivate images on iStockphoto (a counterpart of Getty Images). 
Stock photographer Sean Locke - who has contributed more than 12,000 photos to iStockphoto and sold nearly 1 million licenses - criticized the deal early on and now Getty isterminating his account in 30 days.” http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/istockphoto-terminates-top-contributor-in-aftermath-of-gettygoogle-deal/ 

TAKEAWAY: Photographer Locke has announced that he will migrate to other venues with his microstock photos. The dismissal of Locke (for expressing his opinion) turns out to be a hidden blessing for all microstockers. It’s a reminder that as a microstocker, you can simply migrate your photos from one site to another without missing a beat as they all (all millions of them) seem to come from the same catalog.

Needs, Wants and Art in Florence

Hi everyone,

This is my first "real video" and I made it for One Day on Earth Project!

Gemma my intern and I worked on this together and she did a ton of work, plus all of the editing!

Clap Clap Gemma!

Please view the video at this link, share to spread the work and provide feedback!

Also, the CB Project is now preparing to conduct workshops with homeless men and sheltered women in Portland, Oregon!  We have a total of 18 participants.

Needs, Wants and Art in Florence from Susan Brannon on Vimeo.

After The War: Transparency Isn't Treason: NY Times Journalist questions charge

After The War: Transparency Isn't Treason: NY Times Journalist questions charge

Visual Storytelling: 14 Tools for Journalists

This is a great and informative article!

A list of just 14 tools that journalists might find useful to tell stories in visual ways, inspired by the visual storytelling session at the latest news:rewired event

Reposted from Journalism.co.uk

Over the past year here at Journalism.co.uk we have reported on a number of new tools and platforms which have been launched or updated, which offer journalists different ways of telling stories visually.

Our news:rewired events have also highlighted a number of those tools, most recently in a dedicated session on visual storytelling at news:rewired - digital stories, which was held last Thursday (6 December).

Here is a list of just 14 tools that journalists might find useful. Some launched this year, while others have been around for some time now but continue to be used by news outlets today.

Timelines

1. Timetoast

Users simply sign up to Timetoast and then they can create embeddable timelines.

Each event added to the timeline can have an image and link added to it. Timelines can be saved as drafts until ready to be published, at which point they can be customised and embedded into news sites. The timelines can be viewed as a table or in timeline format and the final timeline is also given its own URL for direct linking.

At news:rewired last week Paul Rowland, deputy head of content (digital), Media Wales, recommended using Timetoast to build timelines, showing one he created on "Wales' rise and fall since Rugby World Cup 2011" as an example of the tool in use.  more...

Thank You Instagram/Facebook for Taking my Livelihood Away

"Photography is my passion, my calling, and my means of livelihood. It is how I provide for my family and send my children to school. Now Instagram and Facebook want to take my hard earned imagery — imagery that at times, I and others have risked life and limb for — and use it to generate income for themselves. 

What they have done is signaled the end and failure of what could have been a revolutionary social media platform for visual communication. Now, I must take a step back and reassess my place on Instagram. "—Benjamin Lowy

Susan Brannon

22 Dec 2012

Benjamin Lowy could not have said it better.  I want to thank both Facebook and Instagram for taking away the opportunity for me to continue to live my life as I have in the past taking away all the years of training, networking, traveling and risking my own life to tell the stories to the rest of the world and generate an income for my own survival.

I have spoken to those who are not photographers but who are businessmen about the problem with free access to images and its effects on our profession and livelihood.  The response is something like this, "Well, everyone has the right to take photographs and put them online and the companies can use the images if they want.  If they can save money then it is their right to do so."  

This is a reflection of our ever changing world and the effects of technology and social networks generating arrogance with a lack of social responsibility while entire fields of careers are completely destroyed.  In turn, this leaves more and more people out of work and having to change careers with less jobs to find.  Then of course, less money to spend and more businesses closing down.  

Social networking such as Facebook and Instagram actions with usage rights are now slowing dissolving the world of photo reporters and their ability to earn a living.  Not to mention the quality of images in most publications and news outlets has diminished to a simple point and shoot frame.

Instagram had so much flack from hard core users such as National Geographic and leading photographers that they decided to roll back their new terms, but they are not that different than before.  National Geographic has decided to renew their Instagram usage and  That may be fine for someone big like National Geographic or Time, but what about the individual photographer who struggles to make a living?  

I would like the option to post on Facebook or Instagram after I have sold an image to share, BUT if Time magazine wants to put a posted image on the front page, I want to get paid for it.  That is how others and myself survive.  Publishing an image on the front page of Time is a big deal and who knows what the photographer has gone through to get to that point.  Normally, in the photography world we have to work hard for countless hours and climb our way up.  We train, we get wet, we travel, we don't sleep, we watch wars, we stay up all night, and sometimes we become an ear for those who need to talk.  For us, it is not just point and shoot it is our lives and our passions.

How would you feel if driving down the street in Times Square and you see your image on a huge sign and was never told about it nor paid for it?  That image could be worth thousands and they used it for free brought to you by Instagram or Facebook.

In their terms of use they state, "you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service"...

"(iii) you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of Content you post on or through the Service; and (iv) you have the legal right and capacity to enter into these Terms of Use in your jurisdiction."

"you choose to send us content, information, ideas, suggestions, or other materials, you further agree that Instagram is free to use any such content, information, ideas, suggestions or other materials, for any purposes whatsoever, including, without limitation, developing and marketing products and services, without any liability or payment of any kind to you."

Last but not least the famous ARBITRATION NOTICE: EXCEPT IF YOU OPT-OUT AND EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DISPUTES DESCRIBED IN THE ARBITRATION SECTION BELOW, YOU AGREE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND INSTAGRAM WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION.

This takes away the users power to use legal remedies.

A class action lawsuit was filed on the 21st by the San Diego Law Firm, Finklestein and Krisnk.  They feel that Facebook owned Instagram new terms include unlawful taking of users property rights, unfair business practices, and breach of contract.  

As for myself, I never used Instagram and hardly Facebook to put my images...unless they are watermarked, signed, and paid for.  It is great for spreading the word about my work, and gaining visibility.  But, I don't like to "share" images of my personal life with those out there in the world that I don't know at least as much as many others do.

Now is the time, to be careful and go back to the old days, before there was internet and physically knock on doors to get the work!

"They have just killed Instagram. I will never use it under any circumstance with these terms. "

—Christopher Morris

Vintage Fashion Photos

Susan Brannon

I did some vintage fashion shots in Florence.  Here are a few!

to view more click here

The Union Newspaper Fails to Credit Photographer

Newspapers, magazines, websites are increasingly omitting giving photo credits.  This is not good, legal or ethical.  If I was not a professional photographer I would be proud to have my image on the front page of a newspaper!  I would safe the clip and put it in my photo album for my grandchildren to see one day.  As a professional, it is an insult because we try to make a real living from our images, we need to eat, have a place to sleep and feed our families.  It's only right for the publishers to ask permission, and more correct to pay a bit for using the image!  As photographers professional or not, we must continue to fight.  This photographer started a Facebook thread.  Story below

Republished from: Jeff Pelline's Sierra Foothills Report

Photo by: John M. Daly

The Union is painting itself as a hero amid charges of copyright infringement involving a giant centerpiece photo it ran on the front page on Tuesday without crediting the photographer, with a headline “Thanks to John Daly for one stunning shot.”

In fact, the newspaper was the goat, having put itself at risk legally as a commercial venture — and on top of that, it omitted all together how the controversy arose in its own watered-down version of the incident — an episode that was slap in the face to local artists.

“As rain came to an end and clouds parted from this weekend’s storms, Nevada City photographer John Daly headed down to the Highway 49 bridge and captured both the natural beauty and ferocity of western Nevada County’s beloved South Yuba River — beneath a double rainbow, no less,” reads the article this morning by Managing Editor Brian Hamilton (on an inside page; the photo was on page 1).

“Daly shared his stunning shot with the community through The Union, which published the photo on the front page of Tuesday’s edition. Unfortunately, proper credit was not provided to the photographer in the print edition. The Union regrets the error, as Daly certainly deserves recognition for a piece of art so well received by our readers.”

“Unfortunate?” That’s an understatement — both on ethical and legal grounds.

“Daly’s South Yuba shot drew rave reviews on The Union’s Facebook page,” the article continued, “where by noon Tuesday more than 1,700 people had viewed the photo — of which 90 had shared it elsewhere, reaching an unknown total number of Facebook users — and several expressed their gratitude for Daly’s work:”

But here’s what The Union left out: — sharp criticism involving charges of copyright infringement, including from the photographer himself — on another Facebook page, “Nevada County Peeps.” It’s a very valid concern, based on routine journalistic standards.

“It is nice to have the photo on the front page of The Union Newspaper in Grass Valley, CA,” the photogropher wrote in the “Nevada County Peeps” page on Facebook. “But The Union is well-known for being unreliable. I gave them the photo on the proviso that I would have credit on the photo and they even said they would mention my photography exhibition in Nevada City. They did none of this. They literally stole the photo by simply saying ‘submitted photo,’ no mention of my name. .

•”That’s why we don’t get the local paper,” wrote one reader on the Facebook thread, which generated 33 comments.

•”Glad I didn’t send my photos there..I wondered whose photo it was. A lovely photo indeed!” wrote another.

•”The Union’s policy on giving photo credits is highly irregular,” wrote another reader. “As someone who has submitted dozens and dozens of photos over the years, I’ve learned they usually will not credit the photographer. I have no idea how they get away with it, but they do.”

“DISREPECTFUL”

•”The Union unfortunately does not serve the people or the community – only business, and even that is questionable,” said another.

•”Yes, there have been many askew articles printed in The Union and it has been very disrespectful and like most media had a huge influence on people’s opinion — true or not “as they read it in the paper,” said another. “Add on the typos and the grammatical errors over the years, I gave up subscribing.”

•”John, I’m really sorry to hear this,” I wrote after noticing the controversy. “As you know, we were glad to pay for your large-size photos of the Yuba River and give youcredit by name in the current issue of our FoodWineArt magazine and on the companion http://www.SierraCulture.com website. We’re also going to restock Java Johns with our magazine that carries your photo and credit, and we have publicized your show at Java Johns on our Facebook page. Be assured that the journalistic standards in our community are not all the same. Have a great day and thanks for such a lovely photo!”

When the Facebook posts and comments appeared in droves, Daly did hear from The Union:

•”OK, The Union just called me and apologized for the mistake,” Daly wrote. “They are going to republish in tomorrows paper with full credit and pay for the photo. And mention my Photo Exhibit currently at Java Johns. I will have to print this photo and put it up in the Exhibit.”

“Wondered how that happened- glad they took responsibility,” one reader reacted.

What remains unanswered is:

1. How did such an egregious error happen in the first place? Copyright infringement puts the newspaper at legal risk — well beyond “doing the right thing” to credit an artist’s work in a giant front-page photo.

2. What are The Union’s practices and policies when it comes to photo credits? Why wasn’t the photographer paid in the first place (instead of as an afterthought)? Is anything going to change?

3. Why did The Union omit how the controversy arose in the first place — in social media on a page created by a grassroots effort in the community, called “Nevada County Peeps.” Was it embarrassed to give the full account?

Daly concluded: “I am glad this has developed such a lively and needed debate in our community. Thanks for all your support.” Amen to that!

Man Dies Falling Into Chimney while Photographing

You can get some really nice shots from high places, but it is always important to watch your step while shooting from the rooftops.

Reposted: PetaPixel  DL Cade · Dec 14, 2012

Less than a week removed from the train photographer tragedy in Sacramento, California, another sad story has made its way across our desks. A 23-year-old man named Nicholas Wieme died in the pursuit of a “rooftopping” photograph yesterday after he fell into a building’s smokestack in Chicago.

After eating dinner with his girlfriend in a restaurant at the InterContinental Hotel, the couple decided to climb to the top of the 42-story building, check out the smokestack, and shoot some photos from the high vantage point.

When Wieme reached the top of the smokestack he lost his footing and fell in, plummeting 22-feet down the scorching chimney before getting stuck in a small bend two stories below the roof.

The fall itself didn’t kill Wieme, who was able to send a text to his girlfriend asking for help; however, it took Chicago firefighters 4 hours to reach and safely extract him from the smokestack. And although he was rushed to a local hospital, he was pronounced dead upon arrival.

National Geographic Top 10 Images 2012

Wedding Fashion Show in Florence, Italy

This is cool!  I am learning things on how to embed my own slideshow of images!  Now I can strut my stuff...

Sell Prints

SELL PRINTS -- 7 Ways Erica Siciliano: “One of the biggest challenges for photographers is getting their work seen by people who are interested in buying it. Online galleries and marketplaces offer a number of benefits to photographers including reaching a new audience, and printing, packaging and shipping the work after it's sold. Check out seven websites that help both up-and-coming and seasoned shooters reach buyersaround the world.” http://www.pdnonline.com/features/7-Ways-to-Sell-Your--6935.shtml 

David Byrne had his award Revoked

Landscape Photographer Has Award Revoked For Excessive Editing - Tim Barribeau: David Byrne had his title of Take a View Landscape Photographer of the Yearstripped after his images were shown to be edited beyond the rules of the competition. Earlier in 2012, photographer David Byrne was awarded the title Landscape Photographer of the Year by the organization Take a View, but it has since come out that the shots that Byrne took were so heavily edited — and potentially even plagiarized — that the title has been stripped and awarded to another photographer. The image that won Byrne the prize is above, and the takedown of the photographer has been widespread. A lot of it started with Alex Neil, who posted about how the winning photograph was heavily influenced by other work. The allegations of heavy handed editing started to pop up in discussion forums, and Tim Parkin did an analysis of how the light sources inside some of the photos were inconsistent. As debate spread, it became clear that Byrne was heavilyediting/compositing the images. If you hit that Alex Neil link, and head to the section "Updated again!", there's a particularly damning animated GIF that shows just how heavily things were altered in another shot that Byrne entered.
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/11/landscape-photographer-has-award-revoked-excessive-editing?src=facebook
Note: Byrne later reported that he “didn’t thoroughly read the ‘Take A View’ rules."

Watch Out For the Photo Contests!

Photo by Susan Brannon

Susan Brannon
28 October 2012

I have always wondered about many of the photo contests that I see advertised and to be honest, I hardly ever enter any of them.  There are a few reasons; I don't have enough time to enter, I don't want to pay to enter and sometimes when I have tried many of the sites interface is quite difficult to navigate. Some of the contests that I viewed even had dead links...now is that professional for a contest?

My first thought was why would I have to pay a company to enter into a photo contest?  My logic is that just having a contest creates visibility to the company and I can imagine the click ratio increased dramatically.   If a company charges lets say, $25.00 to enter a contest and 250 people enter they have made that is $6,250 in additional income!  Okay, should I have a photo contest?  I could sure use the money to support the Crossing Borders Project to keep it alive.  Let's see, I can offer the photographer a  top spot on the contest web page, showing the wining image and the second and third place will get free spots below!  I can also offer a small tid-bit on the photographer and the image with a link to their website.  Wow what a deal!  With that, I can even afford to offer the 1st prize winner $500.00 the 2nd $250.00 and 3rd $100.00 and I would still be one happy camper.

What about the images that are submitted?  Well, normally when someone signs the agreement upon entering, they agree that the company gets all rights to the images submitted to use for promotional purposes, publications on their website (with credits of course) without any compensation to the photographer.  What a deal for the company and the photographer?  Well, they would hope to get some type of recognition for their wonderful images.

It was not that long ago that contests were to recognize new talent, in the pursuit of the hobbiest and the pleasure of the craft.  Today is a very different story.  it has become a "rights grab".  Imagine if you are an environmental NGO needing some images to fill your publications and website, not including exposure and have a photo contest.  Imagine how many free images you would get to use.  Humanitarian images are actually hard to come by and very expensive to hire a professional to go out an about to take real images of the projects.  When the NGO uses the images from the contest most people do not know (the donors for example) that they are not actual images of the NGO's work and projects.  So instead of the NGO paying let's say 1,000 for two days of work, they receive money and get all the free rights to an image.

Here is an example of the "small print" for a well known non-profit organization (which is another story as far as non-profits are concerned):
     "By entering (reference to contest deleted) the contest, you retain the rights to your works while granting XXX (sponsors name deleted) the unrestricted, royalty-free, perpetual right to use, reproduce, communicate, modify and display the works (in whore or in part) for any purpose without any fee or other form of compensation, and without further notification or permission.
     By participating in this contest, you release and agree to indemnify and hold harmless XXX (reference to contest deleted)  and its employees, directors, officers, affiliates, agents, judges and advertising and promotional agencies from any and all damages, injuries, claims, causes of actions, or losses of any kind resulting from your participation in this contest or receipt or use of any prize."

Let me explain, there are copyright laws in most countries when a person snaps that shutter, the image by default is copyrighted in your name as the author of the work. Furthermore, you have the right to have your name associated with that work.

"Royalty Free" means that the publisher is only compelled to honor you with a "reward" just one time.  Read the fine print, because you may be giving them permission to re-use or any other company to re-use, publish your image without any compensation.

"Royalty Free in Perpetuity" means that the company the sponsor will gain something tangible from the use of your free image for many years to come.  In my opinion, this term should be avoided.

Which term should send off the biggest red flag of them all?"Forever hold harmless and indemnify" means that they can do whatever they want with your image without your knowledge or consent.  They can sell that image to someone else for a purpose that you do not agree with under a false context, such as using the image to represent what it was not intended to represent such as an image of a person who is condemning a political candidate and that image is your neighbor!  Imagine if that image was blasted all over the main stream news on the front page!  Imagine what your neighbor would say to you the next day and hands you a lawsuit.

With this term, no matter how they decide to use your image you are responsible and the publisher is free from all legal recourse.

In the end, when you are thinking of entering into that cute contest of baby pictures, read and re-read the agreement and be aware of the terms used.  It may just be a great contest where fellow photographers can view each others work and get some credit for it.  My advise?  Just be careful.

A propaganda video: photography taking

Susan Brannon
22 September 2012

A video to tell us what to look for in suspicious situations for terrorism implementing fear.  People taking photographs which is often used to prepare for a terrorist attack.  Telling you to make the call.  Don't rely on others to take action.  The video is put out by the department of homeland security.

These things are concerning and leads towards increasing fear in just about everything and everyone.

Taking images?  really?  You can clearly see in the background the suspicious person taking images.


"Every U.S. resident should be aware of the threat of terrorism and how to handle this threat. Such knowledge is all the more essential when you live in a major metropolitan area. Large, heavily populated urban centers all over the world have long been the favored targets of terrorists. If you see suspicious behavior, Make the Call."

Photojournalists as Terrorists in the U.S.A.

Susan Brannon
24 September 2012


There has been a lot of talk lately regarding our freedom of expression and speech in the world of photojournalism.  Last year when the Occupy movement started many journalists were reported as being arrested, some have been arrested four times.  It is our job as photojournalists to tell the story and it our job as journalists to let the world know and judge for themselves what perspective they want to take.

It is becoming more and more difficult to tell the news through the world of images.  The police hit you on the head with their batons, they block your lens they tell you to go away or they simply drag you into the back of a van for arrest.  They do not like images being taken of some of the abuses that occurs during the protests because it is proof of their uncivil behavior.  Are we as journalists supposed to tell lies through our lens?  I don't think so and that is not what journalism is all about.  Or, shall I say that is not what we are supposed to stand for ethically.

The last thing that I want to do when catching "action" and news is to ask the policemen to stand and shake the hands of a protester with a smile on his face for the camera.  That is not the reality that I hear and read about.

For me as a photojournalist, this is scary and very much so.  Not in terms of my own physical safety but in terms of our country becoming fascist in the direction of Hitler or Mussolini or even the current Berlusconi who controls almost all of the Italian media.  This is the police state that people are talking about or have been talking about in the years past.  This is not a conspiracy, this is a reality. Our country was founded on these simple freedoms, we even had street corners where people could stand and voice their opinions to those who were willing to listen.

This is a larger part of the anti-terrorist concept taken to the extreme. Democracy is denied these days.  We need to be careful of "fear", because when there is "fear" then we change our free ways.  After 9/11 it gave an excuse to change the laws.  Photographer Chris Miller who has been arrested three times said, "They’re recording us, they don’t want us recording them,” said Miller. “They really want to put a scare factor into us,” he added.

These photographers even ask if they are using their images to send to the Al Qaeda. "NPPA  responds to the LAPD special order that equates photography with criminal activity" reports that "The LAPD recently issued guidelines instructing their officers on “behavior/activity that may reveal a nexus to foreign or domestic terrorism.” Such behavior listed includes:

“Taking pictures or videos of facilities/buildings, infrastructures, or protected sites in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person.  Examples include taking pictures or videos of ingress/egress, delivery locations, personnel performing security functions (e.g., patrol, badge/vehicle checking), security-related equipment (e.g., perimeter fencing, security cameras), etc”

The NPPA responded, "“Photography is protected by the First Amendment, subject only to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Unfortunately the reliance on policies such as the LAPD’s as the basis for law enforcement officers to question, detain and interfere with lawful activities by photographers under the guise of preventing terrorist activities has become a daily occurrence.”

On the "Lens Blog with the NY Times" in their article titled, "Criminalizing Photography" Through an interview with Mickey H. Osterreicher with the NPPA he says, "It’s not just news photographers who should be concerned with this. I think every citizen should be concerned. Tourists taking pictures are being told by police, security guards and sometimes other citizens, “Sorry, you can’t take a picture here.” When asked why, they say, “Well, don’t you remember 9/11?”

I remember it quite well, but what does that have do to with taking a picture in public? It seems like the war on terrorism has somehow morphed into an assault on photography."

The advise that I would give is to be polite, ask for permission to cross that "crime line" get to know your local police officers and don't argue. Just walk away and try to see if you can get that "breaking story" from a different angle.

Today there is a bombardment with citizen journalists, using their camera phones as the source.  In Libya or Syria the camera phone is useful to getting the news out and even then they are risking their lives.  The problem is that today, the photojournalists are also risking their lives but in a different way, they risk getting arrested or even beaten up.

Every day a photojournalist is getting arrested in America and that is something that all of us should be having a problem with.  Photographers today are being charged with disorderly conduct, trespassing and the obstruction of governmental administration for doing their job.  Most of the time, the charges get dropped but in the meantime the photographer did not get the news.

The point is that if you are on public property, you have every right to take a picture.  Of course there are differences between taking photographs and the use of the photograph.  Unfortunately, it is the press that is not having as much "free will" with their image taking than the normal John Doe who is photographing a local fire.  It is the press that will be told no and the John Doe can continue. Even then, it is the police in many cities that want to decide what images the photographer can use.  They want to serve and protect by deciding what images to use.  It is not their job and as Osterreicher said in his interview, "Just as a news photographer's job isn't to direct traffic, or collect evidence at a scene…"

Legally, here are some of the sited cases:

Channel 10, Inc v. Gunnarson, 337 F. Supp. 634 (D. Minn. 1972)
"… employees of the news media have a right to be in public places and on public property to gather information, photographically or otherwise."


Schnell v. City of Chi., 407 F.2d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1969)
(reversing dismissal for failure to state a claim of suit claiming police interference with news reporters and photographers’ “constitutional right to gather and report news, and to photograph news events” under the First Amendment (internal quotation mark omitted)


Cape Publications, Inc. v. Bridges, 423 So.2d 426, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,1982.
"the right of privacy does not necessarily protect a person against the publication of his name or photograph in connection with the dissemination of legitimate news
items or other matters of public interest."

"...where one becomes an actor in an occurrence of public interest, it is not an invasion of her right to privacy to publish her photograph with an account of such occurrence. Just because the story and the photograph may be embarrassing or distressful to the plaintiff does not mean the newspaper cannot publish what is otherwise newsworthy."

Poor Customer and Repair Service at Nikon

In light of the petition that I requested for my readers to sign, I thought that I would provide a link to the high amount of complaints regarding Nikon's service:

http://www.contacthelp.com/directory/Shopping/Electronics/Nikon?ListingID=48

just keep scrolling down until you see the comments.
This is no joke.