>> |
Anonymous
>>66072 You're confusing the standard for what sort of photography is allowed in public places without a model release versus whether the standard over which Homeland Security department will throw a hissy fit.
In the case of the former, anything in public view may be photographed and disseminated without a model release, so long as it isn't for commercial or advertising purposes. The sale of an object of art does not change the legal status of the photograph.
In the case of the latter, there isn't one. Enjoy your arbitrary detention.
>>66016
Shooting aircraft with a camera (as opposed to with a gun or missile) is completely legal.
If you intend to photograph a base, whether you are legally allowed to do so is up to the individual base commander. That doesn't sound like the case. If you want to and you don't know the legality or if it's illegal and you want to request permission, write to the base commander's office and explain youre an art photographer, throw in a bit about how youre doing a photo essay on [insert some nationalistic/pro-military/etc. theme] in there, and unless theyre a dick, theyll probably let you. Photocopy the response and carry the copy with you, just in case.
You wouldnt have to give credit to the Department of Defense. Robert Capa didnt caption his photograph of the dying Republican soldier in the Spanish Civil War Photograph courtesy of Generalísimo Franco, though that wouldve been somewhat witty.
This (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) is a pretty good summary of everything.
(I'm not a lawyer, BTW, so it's on you if you get v& for doing anything I said in this post.)
|