Search

NPPA Joins 32 Other Organizations in Calling on FAA to Expedite Rulemaking for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

April 8th, 2014 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) joins the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and 30 other organizations in sending a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) encouraging the agency to expedite the rulemaking process for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations in the U.S. airspace. The letter also calls on the FAA to allow the limited use of small UAS for commercial purposes before the final rulemaking is completed.

While Congress authorized the integration of UAS in 2012 and the FAA has recently implemented key steps in the integration process, the rulemaking for small UAS has been delayed for almost four years. Last month’s FAA v. Pirker decision underscores the immediate need for a safety structure and regulatory framework for small UAS, according to the co-signees.

“The time for resolution has come, and we cannot afford any further delays. The technology is advancing faster than the regulations to govern it,” the letter states. “While the FAA has indicated its intention to appeal the Pirker decision to the full National Transportation Safety Board, we strongly encourage the FAA to simultaneously expedite its small UAS rulemaking and issue notice and public comment as soon as possible.”

In addition to NPPA, the co-signees include a broad array of organizations and industries, from agriculture to real estate to photography, that recognize the benefits of UAS in particular for newsgathering purposes.

In addition to expediting the UAS rulemaking, the organizations urged the FAA to use its congressional authority to allow some limited UAS operations right away.

“We recommend the FAA use all available means, including Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, to allow for some limited UAS operations, subject to the Secretary of Transportation’s safety determination, before the small UAS rule is finalized,” the letter states.

“The current regulatory void has left American entrepreneurs and others either sitting on the sidelines or operating in the absence of appropriate safety guidelines. The recreational community has proven that community-based safety programming is effective in managing this level of activity, and we highly encourage the FAA to allow similar programming to be used to allow the small UAS industry to establish appropriate standards for safe operation. Doing so will allow a portion of the promising commercial sector to begin operating safely and responsibly in the national airspace.”

According to AUVSI’s economic impact study, the integration of UAS will create more than 100,000 new jobs and $82 billion in economic impact in the first decade following integration. NPPA’s Executive Director Charles (Chip) Deale commended the groups’ effort to advocate for a regulatory framework.

“It is unfortunate that the FAA has taken so long to address this issue in a commonsense and expedited manner and we urge Administrator Huerta to include our organization and other stakeholders in its rulemaking process,” Deale said.

The letter co-signees include: Aerospace States Association, Air Traffic Controllers Association, Airborne Law Enforcement Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’ Airports Council International – North America, American Association of Airport Executives, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Society of Agronomy, American Soybean Association, Crop Science Society of America, Experimental Aircraft Association, General Aviation Manufactures Association, Helicopter Association International, International Society of Precision Agriculture, International Stability Operations Association, National Air Traffic Controllers Association, National Air Transportation Association, National Association of Realtors, National Association of State Aviation Officials, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Business Aviation Association, National Sheriffs’ Association, National Ski Areas Association, National Sunflower Association, North American Equipment Dealers Association, Radio Television Digital News Association, Realtors Land Institute, Soil Science Society of America and U.S. Canola Association

The full letter may be found at www.auvsi.org/AUVSI-AMA-Sign-On-Letter-To-FAA

Posted in Access, drone, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, UAS, Visual Journalists | 1 Comment »

NPPA Discouraged by SCOTUS Continued Refusal to Allow Cameras in Its Courtroom

March 25th, 2014 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , ,

Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court continues to refuse to change its position on cameras in its courtroom.  The Coalition for Court Transparency recently sent a letter to the Chief Justice requesting him to reconsider the High Court’s longstanding policy barring audio-visual coverage of its proceedings. The Court’s Public Information Officer timely responded by saying “there are no plans to change the Court’s current practices” whereby they will continue to make audio recordings of all oral arguments available on the Court’s website “at the end of each argument week” and written transcripts of those arguments “on the same day the argument is heard.” r

NPPA Executive Director Charles W.L. (“Chip”) Deale, reacted to the Court’s letter by stating, “NPPA is grateful that the Supreme Court at least showed the courtesy of responding to a letter from the Coalition for Court Transparency (of which NPPA is a member) calling for cameras to be allowed during Court proceedings. However, the Court’s continued intransigence on this important issue is highly discouraging and, NPPA believes, a disservice to American citizens.  Via the Coalition, NPPA will continue to advocate for greater transparency by the Court.”

Responding for the Coalition, Bruce Brown of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to whom the court’s letter was addressed, said: “I am appreciative that the Supreme Court responded to our coalition’s letter. I do believe that the smallest of changes to the court’s institutional practices would increase the public’s understanding of and appreciation for the court’s work. I hope that this marks the beginning of a dialogue between the court and those of us who care deeply about press freedom and increasing transparency at our most important judicial institution.”

Mike Cavender, RTDNA Executive Director said, “RTDNA is very disappointed in the Supreme Court’s reluctance to even consider further our request to provide more transparency,” added .  “We firmly believe the actions taken by the Court are of sufficient importance and impact to all Americans to warrant providing video coverage of the arguments the Justices hear.”

As the Coalition stated in its letter to Chief Justice Roberts, “we believe the Supreme Court should embrace contemporary expectations of transparency by public officials and allow the recording and broadcast of its courtroom proceedings. Following Justice John Marshall Harlan’s concurrence in Estes v. Texas (1965), we believe the ‘day’ has long since passed ‘when television [has] become so commonplace an affair in the daily life of the average person as to dissipate all reasonable likelihood that its use in courtrooms may disparage the judicial process.’”

Posted in Access, Cameras in the Courtroom, Coalition for Court Transparency, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, NPPA, Open Government, OpenSCOTUS, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court | 1 Comment »

NPPA Joins Coalition for Court Transparency

February 18th, 2014 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) announced that it had joined the Coalition for Court Transparency (CCT). Citing long lines outside the Supreme Court and the millions of Americans who are interested in, and affected by, the Court’s decisions but unable to see cases being argued, this new alliance of media and legal organizations from across the political spectrum today launched a television ad campaign calling on the justices to allow cameras to televise oral arguments.

The Coalition is taking the unprecedented step of using an ad campaign to draw attention to the lack of transparency in this powerful branch of government and to urge the Justices to change this outdated restriction.

“NPPA strongly believes in greater transparency at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Our support of the bipartisan coalition underscores our belief that the collective voice of CCT-member organizations ultimately can bring about the necessary changes in court policy,” said NPPA president Mark J. Dolan.

While Congress has debated bipartisan, bicameral bills intended to compel Supreme Court justices to allow cameras over the last 15 years, legal experts agree that the justices could simply decide today to allow cameras – and Monday’s cases regarding the Environment Protection Agency and its authority to address greenhouse gas pollution would be televised. In the past C-SPAN officials have stated that the station would broadcast all of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments if allowed.

Currently, to attend Supreme Court hearings, individuals must stand in line outside the building on First Street NE and wait to be ushered in. There are roughly 400 seats in the courtroom, so many people hoping to view the arguments are unable to, especially in cases that have broad public interest, such as the marriage equality, voting rights, and affirmative action cases last term and the campaign finance, recess appointments, and public prayer cases this term. For these types of cases, interested parties must often line up hours, if not days, in advance of the arguments and in some instances pay thousands of dollars to “line-standers” to hold their places for them.

In addition to NPPA, members of the Coalition for Court Transparency are: Alliance for Justice, American Society of News Editors, Constitutional Accountability Center, Liberty Coalition, National Association of Broadcasters, National Press Foundation, OpenTheGovernment.org, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Society for Professional Journalists.

“As one element in our democracy’s system of checks and balances, the U.S. Supreme Court is a vital institution that increasingly is growing in importance.  As such, NPPA believes that citizens have a right to view broadcasts of the court’s oral arguments and announcements of its opinions on cases,” said NPPA Executive Director Charles W. L. (“Chip”) Deale.

Despite the Supreme Court’s own reluctance on cameras, Americans have greater access to high-level judicial hearings elsewhere in the country. All 50 state supreme courts permit recording equipment to varying degrees, and on the federal level the Judicial Conference of the United States has placed cameras in 14 federal courts as part of a three-year, multi-district pilot program to study the effect of broadcasting federal court proceedings.

As the Voice of Visual Journalists since 1946, the NPPA has long advocated for cameras in the courtroom on the state and federal level as the lack of transparency erodes public confidence in the Court. Our general counsel, Mickey H. Osterreicher, has written extensively about the subject and we believe the first way for the public to learn about and understand U.S. Supreme Court decisions is for citizens to be able to watch and hear those cases being announced by and argued before the court.

The ad, a 30-second television spot titled “Everywhere,” will run nearly 300 times in the Washington, D.C., market on cable news outlets over the next few weeks.   The Coalition also announced today that through its website, OpenSCOTUS.com, concerned Americans can sign an online petition calling on Chief Justice John Roberts to allow cameras in the Court.

“Everywhere” script

“The Supreme Court’s decisions impact the lives of Americans everywhere. But only a privileged few get to witness history and see justice in action. Leading Republicans and Democrats and a large majority of Americans support a simple fix – putting cameras in the Supreme Court. State and federal courts allow cameras in the interest of transparency. Shouldn’t our nation’s top court do the same? It’s time for a more open judiciary. It’s time for cameras in the Supreme Court. Find out more and take action at OpenSCOTUS.com.”

To view the ad, visit OpenSCOTUS.com.

For more information contact Mickey H. Osterreicher at 716.983.7800 or lawyer@nppa.org

For more information about the Coalition for Court Transparency, please contact CCT spokesperson Gabe Roth at 202-464-6919 (office), 312-545-8556 (cell) or groth@skdknick.com.

URL: http://www.OpenSCOTUS.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/OpenSCOTUS

Facebook: http://facebook.com/OpenSCOTUS

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/openscotus

Change.org petition:​ https://www.change.org/petitions/chief-justice-john-roberts-it-s-time-for-cameras-in-the-supreme-court-3

Posted in Access, broadcasting, Cameras in the Courtroom, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Open Government, photographers, photojournalism, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court, Visual Journalists | 4 Comments »

Federal “Suspicious Activity” Reporting Initiative Threatens First Amendment Rights

September 20th, 2013 by Wills Citty and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“I observed a male nonchalantly taking numerous pictures inside a purple-line train.”

If this excerpt from a Federal “Tip and Lead” report out of Los Angeles doesn’t necessarily convince you that a crime is afoot then you’re probably not alone.  Nonetheless, that photographer, and many others like him, are now in a federal database under a plan to single out people who may be planning terrorist activity

The problem with the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (SARI) is that many of the activities it targets seem well, unsuspicious.  Worse yet, many of those questioned under the program were engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment.  Despite revisions to try to improve the program, people are still being added to the database who appear to have been doing nothing wrong.  The offense of a man recently added to the database: being “very unfriendly.”  Another was reported for buying a large quantity of cigarettes.  Both individuals were of Middle Eastern decent.  While the language initiative specifically prohibits racial profiling, a cursory investigation of what files are available suggests people are occasionally targeted for their race.   The measure also appears to have the effect, intended or otherwise, of targeting photographers in particular.

Today, in a continued effort to raise awareness of the program and improve its operational standards, the ACLU released a series of the federally collected reports online.  The NPPA joined the ACLU and 25 other organizations in a letter demanding reform. The groups also held a press conference in San Francisco addressing the impact of Suspicious Activity Reporting (“SAR”).

One of the central issues with the SAR initiative stems from confusion over what behavior falls within the programs purview.  The 2009 revised standard for the Director of National Intelligence Information Sharing Environment (ISE), one of a pair of programs that make up the initiative, defines suspicious behavior as observable actions “reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity.”  Further, the revision makes clear that “the same constitutional standards that apply when conducting ordinary criminal investigations also apply to local law enforcement and homeland security officers conducting SAR inquiries.”  The media groups applauded this as an improvement over previous versions of the program, but note that “the failure to clearly state that ISE policy did not authorize the collection, retention or dissemination of personally identifiable information in violation of federal regulations . . . has led to confusion and abuse.”

In addition, The FBI’s eGuardian program, the other arm of the initiative, does not meet the higher standards of the ISE.  The continued reporting of non-threatening behavior suggests that this disjoint is one of the causes of the problem.

Today’s letter also observed that “Based on the SARs obtained thus far, photography and videography are frequently reported without additional facts that render these constitutionally-protected activities inherently suspicious. This reporting trend matches anecdotal reports from photographers who frequently complain that they are not only detained and questioned, but are also prevented from taking photographs and video and deprived of their equipment by police.”

The NPPA has been involved with dozens of similar incidents.  They are troublingly common, even without a federal program that enables, if not encourages their occurrence. “As part of the ‘See Something Say Something Program’ the NPPA is deeply concerned that these policies create an unnecessary climate of fear and suspicion throughout the country under the guise of safety and security for otherwise First Amendment protected activity,” said NPPA general counsel Mickey Osterreicher.

Among the reforms suggested in today’s letter, the groups recommended the government “[re]move photography and other activities clearly protected by the First Amendment from inclusion in lists of SAR categories or other guidance criteria to prevent the unlawful stops, detention, and harassment of photographers, videographers, and journalists.”

Such a revision would be a step in the right direction to ensuring valuable First Amendment activities are not illegally obstructed, and that it’s the people who are monitoring the government, and not the other way around.

Posted in Access, ACLU, California, cell phone cameras, Department of Justice, DOJ, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Photography, Recording, SAR, Street Photography, Suspicious Activity, video cameras, Visual Journalists | 172 Comments »

NPPA Files Joint Brief With RCFP & Other News Media Groups Supporting Right To Photograph Government Horse Roundup

September 13th, 2013 by Wills Citty and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Today the NPPA, along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and supported by other news media organizations, filed a legal brief in support of a photojournalist’s claim of a right to access wild horse roundups on federal land.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to again consider whether the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated wild horse advocate Laura Leigh’s First Amendment rights when it  restricted her ability to photograph a 2010 horse roundup.

Leigh was trying to take pictures of BLM personnel corralling horses in the Nevada scrub when officials demanded she stay in designated public viewing areas.  The views from these locations were obstructed, and Leigh’s wasn’t able to get the pictures she needed, according to court documents.  Monitoring  how the government handles these roundups is important, as they involve removing a vulnerable species from it’s natural habitat.

In the days following the incident, Leigh sought an injunction to prevent the land bureau from restricting public access in the future.  Since then, the case has seen its share of legal wrangling.  The injunction has been alternatively granted and overturned on several occasions.  Now, the appellate court that sent the case back to the lower court last year is set to hear it again.

Though the case involves a relatively specific issue, it implicates a privilege of paramount importance: the right of the press and public to monitor the government.  More specifically, this case is a matter of the extent of access the press and public should be allowed in pursuing that privilege. “Government activities need press access and review, particularly where they occur in remote and deserted locations that the public is unlikely to frequent,” said  Jean-Paul Jassy of the law firm Bostwick & Jassy LLP who authored the brief along with Kevin L. Vick of the same firm, with input from Gregg P. Leslie, Legal Defense Director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Mickey H. Osterreicher, NPPA general counsel.

Like many First Amendment liberties, the right to access government activities is not absolute.  Certainly, some government actions involve serious danger or demand confidentiality to the extent that some restrictions are reasonable. The courts have developed a test for balancing the government’s interest in keeping people away from certain situations against the people’s right to know (usually provided by press coverage) in seeing what their government is doing.

Articulated in Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cnty., 478 U.S. 1, 8,  the “experience and logic” test considers 1) whether the activity in question has historically been open to the press and general public and 2) whether public access plays a significant positive role in the function of that activity.  The stronger these questions are answered in the affirmative, the heavier the burden on the government to demonstrate an “overriding interest” that warrants restriction.  The government also must show that these restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

In the case at hand, the lower court found that 1) wild horse roundups have traditionally been open to the public and 2) open access plays an important role in “protecting the interests of the overpopulated horses and news gathering for the benefit of the public.”

However, the court ruled in the government’s favor.  The U.S District Court judge found that the access restrictions were warranted by concerns over safety and effective horse gathering.   The NPPA and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press strongly disagree. Our objections were outlined in the brief to the Ninth Circuit:

“The court afforded too much discretion to the Government to decide whether observing the gathers was safe, without recognizing that journalists routinely – and critically – face far more dangerous situations on a regular basis without official interference or protection.  [T]he court below denied meaningful public and press access to the horse roundups, while sustaining unconstitutional restrictions on such access.”

The press groups contends that the restrictions as they stand do not allow meaningful access to the roundups.  Photographers simply cannot get adequate images from the locations they are relegated to.  Further, the government has not presented convincing evidence that the roundups are dangerous to the point that such restrictive locations are needed.

This is especially so, the brief notes, because viewing “large, remote operations like wild horse roundups is not an option for most people,  [and] the media act as public surrogates, conveying those images to a vast public audience and enabling the public to satisfy its civic duty in monitoring the government.”

“The BLM restrictions on access are very similar to those used to limit recording police activity in public places as well as being analogous to the right of access to courtroom proceedings,” said Mickey H. Osterreicher. “We also pointed out to the 9th Circuit in our argument and with an appendix of photographs, just how uniquely important and compelling visual images are to the newsgathering process,” he added. “We are hopeful that the Court will take judicial notice of that important distinction in our favor,” Osterreicher added.

Laura Leigh is represented by Gordon M. Cowan. His brief may be read here. The other news media organization that joined in the brief were: the American Society of News Editors, The Association of American Publishers, Inc., the First Amendment Coalition, Battle Born Media LLC, the Los Angeles Times, the Student Press Law Center, the National Press Club, National Public Radio, Inc., The Nevada Press Association, the Reno Gazette-Journal, The Seattle Times Co., Stephens Media LLC and the Society of Professional Journalists.

Posted in Access, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Regulations limiting photography, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press | 46 Comments »

Senate Judiciary Committee passes the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013

September 12th, 2013 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , ,

photo (2)

photo by Mickey Osterreicher/ NPPA

 

A federal shield law edged closer to a reality today as a bill which would enact a federal reporter’s privilege, The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today to move forward to the Senate floor.

A critical part of today’s hearing was an amendment, offered by Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Durbin, which helped expand the definition of who would be covered under the law. A coalition of media groups, of which NPPA is a member, assisted with the wording.

Under the bill, a person becomes a “covered journalist” by having certain elements of journalistic intent when obtaining the relevant information and by meeting the following criteria:

- Employment: If on the relevant date the person was working (either as a staffer or independent contractor) for an entity or service that disseminates news or information. A covered entity includes, among other things, a newspaper, wire service, news agency, news website, news program, magazine, print or electronic periodical, television or radio broadcast, or motion picture.

- Experience: If the person has worked for one of the entities described above for three consecutive months in the past five years, or for an entire year during the past twenty years.

- Safety net: If for some reason, a person believes that they should be covered but they don’t fall into any of the prior categories, a judge can decide that the person is entitled to the qualified privilege in the interest of justice. This gives the judge discretion to strike a balance between the need for a limited application of the privilege and the ever changing definition of journalist.

NPPA Attorney Mickey Osterreicher attended the hearing and was pleased with the outcome. “Trying to define who is a journalist is a vexing problem. If everyone is entitled to the privilege then upon further scrutiny no one will be entitled to it. On the other hand, if  given the state of journalism these days, the media coalition felt that the previous amendment was not inclusive enough and we could not support it.. We all now fully support the bill as amended and we encourage the full senate, as well as the house, to enact it.”

Photographers are expressly included in the definition of “covered journalist.” NPPA has been instrumental in ensuring that the bill covers visual journalists and NPPAs attorneys are satisfied that it does so.

The amendment can be found at this link:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/mediashield/Feinstein/ALB13767.pdf

 

After Passage Left to right:  Paul Boyle, NAA - Sophia Cope, NAA -Kurt Wimmer and Curtis LeGeyt, NAB,  Jeff Kosseff, Covington & Burling, Stephanie Martz, Senator Schumer's office Photo by Mickey Osterreicher.

After Passage Left to right: Paul Boyle, NAA – Sophia Cope, NAA, Kurt Wimmer and Curtis LeGeyt, NAB, Jeff Kosseff, Covington & Burling, Stephanie Martz, Senator Schumer’s office
Photo by Mickey Osterreicher.

 

 

Posted in First Amendment, Free Flow of Information Act, Legal, photojournalism, shield law | 195 Comments »

Photographer Prevails In First Amendment vs Privacy Case

August 5th, 2013 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , ,

A New York City judge has ruled in favor of photographer Arne Svenson, who was being sued by the parents of minor children whose photographs appeared in an exhibit entitled “The Neighbors.”  In May of this year, Martha and Matthew Foster filed a complaint alleging among other things that Mr. Svenson had violated New York State’s Civil Rights Law by using images of their children without permission for commercial and promotional purposes. They had also sought  a preliminary injunction to prevent the dissemination, display and sale of those images.

Mr. Svenson, an artist and photographer, had taken the photos with a telephoto lens from his apartment of residents living across the street and included them in an exhibition at a Chelsea Gallery. That showing led to a number of news articles which in turn brought the issue to the attention of the Plaintiffs.

In dismissing the case, Judge Eileen  A. Rakower, denied the Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause for their failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. because she found the photos protected by the First Amendment as an art form and shielded from New York’s Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51. ”Through the photos, Defendant is communicating his thoughts and ideas to the public,” she wrote adding ”they serve more than just an advertising or trade purpose because they promote the enjoyment of art in the form of a displayed exhibition.” ”The value of artistic expression outweighs any sale that stems from the published photos,” she wrote.

The judge also found that because ”art is protected by the First Amendment, any advertising that is undertaken in connection with promoting that art is permitted.”  She further found that ”‘The Neighbors’ exhibition is a legitimate news item because cultural attractions are matters of public and consumer interest” and that  news organizations and broadcasters  “are entitled to use Defendant’s photographs of Plaintiffs, which have a direct relationship to the news items – the photos are the focus of the newsworthy content.”

Noting that it might make parents ”cringe to think their private lives and images of their small children can find their way into the public forum of an art exhibition, there is no redress under the current laws of the State of New York.”  She then concluded by stating,  “an individual’s right to privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51 yield to an artist’s protections under the First Amendment under the circumstances presented here.”

In a comment regarding the decision, Nancy E. Wolff, who helped  represent Mr. Svenson said, “I have always maintained that photos are entitled to First Amendment protection as expressive works, irrespective of whether they are sold or if they are otherwise commercially exploited”

The Plaintiff was represented by Richard G. Menaker, Esq. of Menaker & Herrmann LLP. The Defendant was represented by Nancy E. Wolff, Esq. and Matthew A. Kaplan, Esq. of Cowan, Debaets, Abrahams & Sheppard, LLP

 

Posted in First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Lawsuit, Photographers' Rights, Privacy, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Right of Publicity | 183 Comments »

« Previous Entries