Reporter Arrested for Photographing Senators, Donors at Democratic Convention

Once again we see a heavy hand coming down on those daring to use a camera in public. This time it was Denver police arresting an ABC News producer for taking pictures, on a public sidewalk, of Democratic senators and big contributor.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Nothing like trespassing on a public sidewalk. This is just one more in an alarmingly growing series of people taking photographs being hassled by authorities. Maybe it's the memory of how video has captured police in brutal activities, or perhaps it's a thought that power brokers should be able to hide from public site even when out in the open. But it's bad.

Memory Chip Field Test in the News

A woman who had forgotten her camera only to find it stolen when she went back to look for it found that the memory chip inside phoned home. According to the Associated Press story, Alison DeLauzon was on vacation in Florida when the camera went missing. But she had used an Eye-Fi SD memory chip that was Wi-Fi enabled. When the thieves walked by an unencrypted Wi-Fi connection, the chip sent back the pictures she had taken - and the ones the criminal duo, both employees at the restaurant where she had left the camera, took of one another. She did get the camera back. Talk about a lucky break for her ... and an unexpected marketing boost for Eye-Fi.

Spitzer's "Kristen" and Copyright

As heat swirled around former New York governor Elliot Spitzer's dalliance with call girls, one's image was grabbed by media from her Myspace page and freely used. But it's a question whether that use was legal or an infringement of copyright. Photo District News has an interesting article on the topic. A number of lawyers they contacted said that the media's rights to do so are questionable:

"Whoever took that picture owns that picture," says New York attorney Nancy Wolff. "It's either an infringement or they [the news outlets] have to make a fair use argument."

Wolff says the news organizations probably decided the risk of a lawsuit was low. They also probably considered competitive pressure as other sources published the same photos. "It's a fast business decision," Wolff says.

As I understand it, one of the aspects of fair use is education - but that means that the contents itself of the copyrighted piece must be what is at issue. But the stories are not about the photos; they're about the alleged business arrangements between Spitzer and Ashley Dupre/Youmans (the latter being her actual name). So the photos of her are not the subject of discussion and education, and could well be seen as something whose commercial value has now been reduced, which means that "fair use," which could be an argument against infringement, is now a more remote possibility.

But there's one other question I don't see being addressed. Youmans's lawyer has been talking about copyright infringemnt, but who took the pictures? As Youmans was the subject, they wouldn't be her property, but that of the person who pressed the shutter button, and no one has been talking about that person or people, who would have had had to register copyright of the images and who would have standing for taking legal action.