Miami Heat SS's??

[hjaye]

A friend of mine was at the Crescent Hotel in Dallas last week waiting for a final interview for a job.  She was there a little early, so she was waiting downstairs.  While sitting there she noticed a lot of large men walking through he lobby, she didn't know who they were, but considering the bit of a commotion she noticed she figured these were well known people.

She asked someone who they were and found out that they were the Miami Heat basketball team.  Now my friend does not go anywhere without her camera, so she took it out to take some pictures.  When she did that a very large man who she thinks was a body guard came over to her and told her no pictures were allowed. 

Another lady had started to take out a camera and she was also told no pictures were allowed to be taken.  What I thought was over the top was a woman who had already managed to get some pictures using her cell phone.  The body guard took the phone out of the woman's hand, deleted the pictures off her phone and then gave it back to her.

[Sabbyfrog2]

Not SS at all of the Heat IMO actually. They weren't the ones doing it.
Is it abrupt and possible rude of the bodygaurd? Yeah I'd say so but it's his job. It's not his job to care about your feelings, just protect his clients. A lot of damage can be done with photos taken of sorts players. Their "image" is kinda protected and you can't photograph them without permission.

[Wulfie]

I don't think it is SS at all for them not to want thier pictures taken. It IS SS if you try to do it after you have been asked not to but from what you wrote, I don't think that was the case with any of the people you listed.

My verdict: No SS in this story.

[jimithing]

Not SS at all of the Heat IMO actually. They weren't the ones doing it.
Is it abrupt and possible rude of the bodygaurd? Yeah I'd say so but it's his job. It's not his job to care about your feelings, just protect his clients. A lot of damage can be done with photos taken of sorts players. Their "image" is kinda protected and you can't photograph them without permission.

I disagree with this aspect. I can understand why they don't want to have their picture taken, and I don't take pictures of famous people for this reason, but there is no expectation of privacy when they are out in public and you don't have to obtain permission to take a picture of a Heat player out at a restaurant or out shopping. Now, if the hotel, being a private business, has a rule about this, then I think that's different and they have a right to make that rule.

I also think it was completely out of line for the bodyguard to take the woman's camera, her property, and delete the pictures. He's not a law enforcement officer. He's a private citizen, paid by the Heat. I do think he crossed the line there.

[Wittyone]

Not SS at all of the Heat IMO actually. They weren't the ones doing it.
Is it abrupt and possible rude of the bodygaurd? Yeah I'd say so but it's his job. It's not his job to care about your feelings, just protect his clients. A lot of damage can be done with photos taken of sorts players. Their "image" is kinda protected and you can't photograph them without permission.

I disagree with this aspect. I can understand why they don't want to have their picture taken, and I don't take pictures of famous people for this reason, but there is no expectation of privacy when they are out in public and you don't have to obtain permission to take a picture of a Heat player out at a restaurant or out shopping. Now, if the hotel, being a private business, has a rule about this, then I think that's different and they have a right to make that rule.

I also think it was completely out of line for the bodyguard to take the woman's camera, her property, and delete the pictures. He's not a law enforcement officer. He's a private citizen, paid by the Heat. I do think he crossed the line there.

This is how I see it too.  No one has the right to not have their picture taken when they are out in public.  If they did the tabloids/celebrity mags would all be out of business.  One can ask that no pictures be taken, but that is all.  If the hotel had a rule about it then it would be up to the hotel manager to address the situation.  And to physically take the phone from a woman and delete what was then her property is all sorts of wrong.  I say the team is SS, because the bodyguard is acting under their instructions, not his own.

[Oxymoroness]

I think that the problem is that, especially with the higher pixel rate cameras, is that it is easier and easier to sell a photo taken from a cell-phone camera. That, I think is where the concern is.

In the U.S., with one notable exception, even a famous person's image is protected. It is probably far cheaper to have a bodyguard offend someone by swiping their camera to delete the pics and hand it back than it would be to battle it out in court, should that photo have been sold for publication. (And it gets complicated when a person uses their image in a professional capacity.)

ETA: I just double-checked myself, and it's actually even more complicated than that. I'm still thinking that they probably hired a bodyguard because it is cheaper than constantly going to court and/or hiring a PR firm to undo bad publicity.

[ArizonaGirl77]

I think that the problem is that, especially with the higher pixel rate cameras, is that it is easier and easier to sell a photo taken from a cell-phone camera. That, I think is where the concern is.

In the U.S., with one notable exception, even a famous person's image is protected. It is probably far cheaper to have a bodyguard offend someone by swiping their camera to delete the pics and hand it back than it would be to battle it out in court, should that photo have been sold for publication. (And it gets complicated when a person uses their image in a professional capacity.)

I disagree - he had no right to physically take someone else's property to delete the photos. He could have stood behind the woman while she deleted them but I do not think he had the right to remove the camera from her possession and delete the photos.

[Wonderflonium]

Not SS at all of the Heat IMO actually. They weren't the ones doing it.
Is it abrupt and possible rude of the bodygaurd? Yeah I'd say so but it's his job. It's not his job to care about your feelings, just protect his clients. A lot of damage can be done with photos taken of sorts players. Their "image" is kinda protected and you can't photograph them without permission.

I disagree with this aspect. I can understand why they don't want to have their picture taken, and I don't take pictures of famous people for this reason, but there is no expectation of privacy when they are out in public and you don't have to obtain permission to take a picture of a Heat player out at a restaurant or out shopping. Now, if the hotel, being a private business, has a rule about this, then I think that's different and they have a right to make that rule.

I also think it was completely out of line for the bodyguard to take the woman's camera, her property, and delete the pictures. He's not a law enforcement officer. He's a private citizen, paid by the Heat. I do think he crossed the line there.

Pod.

[Wittyone]

I think that the problem is that, especially with the higher pixel rate cameras, is that it is easier and easier to sell a photo taken from a cell-phone camera. That, I think is where the concern is.

In the U.S., with one notable exception, even a famous person's image is protected. It is probably far cheaper to have a bodyguard offend someone by swiping their camera to delete the pics and hand it back than it would be to battle it out in court, should that photo have been sold for publication. (And it gets complicated when a person uses their image in a professional capacity.)

I don't know that we can talk about this without getting into legalities, but I'm not sure this is true.  Celebrities, who absolutely use their image to sell themselves, have their picture taken all the time, without their permission.  Photographers, even amateurs then can sell those images to magazines and websites, and even newspapers.  The photographee doesn't get a cut of the profits, only the photographer.

[Oxymoroness]

I think that the problem is that, especially with the higher pixel rate cameras, is that it is easier and easier to sell a photo taken from a cell-phone camera. That, I think is where the concern is.

In the U.S., with one notable exception, even a famous person's image is protected. It is probably far cheaper to have a bodyguard offend someone by swiping their camera to delete the pics and hand it back than it would be to battle it out in court, should that photo have been sold for publication. (And it gets complicated when a person uses their image in a professional capacity.)

I disagree - he had no right to physically take someone else's property to delete the photos. He could have stood behind the woman while she deleted them but I do not think he had the right to remove the camera from her possession and delete the photos.

I wasn't saying that it was not rude or even nice... just less complicated.

If there were some guaranteed way to ensure that a snapped celebrity photo wouldn't be sold, it'd be a moot point. Personal use isn't a problem. So I can understand why a celebrity or organization would be more forceful in making sure that the photos would be deleted.

Could the woman sue the bodyguard? Sure. But is she like to? I highly doubt it, and that's probably what the Heat and other celebrities are banking on.

Someone brought up the photos in the tabloids... Tabloids get sued all.the.time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they count that as the cost of doing business and budget appropriately. If anything, those lawsuits — especially the highly published ones — probably increase readership.

Is any of this nice or civilized? No. But it is reality.

So who was rude? In my book, everyone.

The woman was told that they didn't want their pictures taken, but did anyway.

The bodyguard could have accomplished the same thing in a nicer way.

The Heat hired someone and gave them license to abuse their fans.

ETA: I modified my original statement because I don't understand it as well as I thought I did.

[camlan]

I think if the Heat players did not want their pictures taken, they should not have been in the hotel lobby. Any large hotel has several entrances, and I'm sure there's a way to get celebrities to and from their rooms without the general public being able to see them. By entering the public space, the players took the risk that their pictures might be taken.

If anyone had tried to take my cell phone or camera, I'd have been screaming bloody murder, and calling the police. A private bodyguard does not have the right to take my property and do anything to it. A police officer, yes. A hired bodyguard, no.

Being a celebrity has downsides and having your picture taken when you are out in public is one of them. That's how paparazzi make their living. And celebrities are annoyed by paparazzi, but there is only so much they can do about them.

Not SS at all of the Heat IMO actually. They weren't the ones doing it.
Is it abrupt and possible rude of the bodyguard? Yeah I'd say so but it's his job.

It's an assumption, but I'm assuming that the bodyguards were acting under orders from the Heat. Therefore, if you want to call this SS behavior, it originates with the Heat.

[Maujer]

YES! They're horribly rude SS's! Send them to ehell!

Says the diehard Celtics fan who should probanly not be trusted in these matters.  

[Oxymoroness]

I think that the problem is that, especially with the higher pixel rate cameras, is that it is easier and easier to sell a photo taken from a cell-phone camera. That, I think is where the concern is.

In the U.S., with one notable exception, even a famous person's image is protected. It is probably far cheaper to have a bodyguard offend someone by swiping their camera to delete the pics and hand it back than it would be to battle it out in court, should that photo have been sold for publication. (And it gets complicated when a person uses their image in a professional capacity.)

I don't know that we can talk about this without getting into legalities, but I'm not sure this is true.  Celebrities, who absolutely use their image to sell themselves, have their picture taken all the time, without their permission.  Photographers, even amateurs then can sell those images to magazines and websites, and even newspapers.  The photographee doesn't get a cut of the profits, only the photographer.

I'm dancing around what I know as far as copyright law to avoid getting into legalities. But I do know from first-hand experience that there are those in the world who operate on the "it's not a problem until I get caught" business plan — the point where he had a filing cabinet dedicated to cease and desist letters.

I did some double-checking, and it's even more complicated than I thought. (Scary, because I have to have a basic understanding... I have some reading to do!)

About the guy from above? (But I do know from first-hand experience that there are those in the world who operate on the "it's not a problem until I get caught" business plan — the point where he had a filing cabinet dedicated to cease and desist letters.) Totally true. He didn't worry about legalities until he got caught.

[Wonderflonium]

Tabloids get sued for false stories and pictures taken in private spaces (eg, the guy who used a telephoto lens to snap pics of Jennifer Aniston while she was in her back yard). They don't get sued for publishing pictures of things that happened in public. Everyone, including celebrities, can be photographed in public without permission.

[gollymolly2]

Legally you can take a picture of anyone, famous or not, in a public space because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in your face when you take your face out into the public sphere.  What the photo-taker cannot do is then appropriate their name or image without the famous person's consent for a commercial advantage.  There is absolutely nothing illegal about taking a picture of a famous person in a hotel room for your own use.  Tabloids get sued because they print stories that they completely make up and because they take pictures in private areas (eg with a telephoto lens in someone's backyard).

So the legalities are totally irrelevant here.  Even though I hate the heat (particularly one person) with a burning passion, I do have some sympathy for all famous people who are hounded constantly. It must be incredibly hard to never have a moment of privacy outside your home.  So I think it's a kindness not to ogle famous people when you see them and not to take pictures/bug them for autographs.  However, I don't think there's anything rude about choosing to take their picture (as long as you're not also obstructing their path or something).  The bodyguard was fine asking people not to take pictures, in my opinion, but demanding and/or deleting photos from phones was inappropriate.



ETA: Wonderflonium, I totally missed your post before. Sorry, looks like we were really on the same wavelength, down to the telephoto lens!