Posts Tagged‘legal’

A Photographic Jaunt.

I had a rather fun and interesting weekend in terms of photography. As part of my whole pursuing my passions business I’ve set about trying to better myself as a photographer and part of that is challenging myself each week (or as close to that as I can) to take on a photographic challenge. The first one was something I was already comfortable with, landscapes, and flush with victory for that I decided to take on something that I haven’t really seriously tackled before: architecture. I had a few locations here in Canberra scouted out and so after swinging by the computer fair to pick up a new router I jumped straight in, looking to find that unique view of some Canberran architecture that’d catch my eye.

To put it simply the day didn’t go quite as I had expected. I figured buildings would be much like landscapes, big things that don’t move or complain so they’d make for easy photographic pickings. It’s completely the opposite of course as for landscapes you’re usually taking things from a great distance away and for buildings and architecture you usually don’t have the luxury of distance, especially if you’re in the middle of a city like I was. I haven’t had the chance to fully review all the pictures I took but suffice to say none of them really impressed me after I took them, so I definitely know there’s room for improvement there.

However during my journey I made a quick sojourn up to the iconic Parliament House as no photographic trip focused on architecture would be complete without a picture or two of it in there. As I approached it however I noticed a group of people out the front with many holding signs and a loud speaker amplifying the words of a lone spokesman. Intrigued I approached them and from what I could tell (many of the signs and speeches were in Arabic, I believe) were protesting the current asylum seeker legislation. Figuring this would be a good time to hone my photojournalisitc skills, which didn’t exist prior to this, I started snapping pictures. No one complained about having their pictures taken but it did bring back some horrible memories of stories of fellow photographers who had had some bad experiences doing the same thing.

Generally speaking if you’re on public property you have every right to take a picture of what you see, especially if what you’re taking a picture of is on public property as well. There have been numerous cases of people being harassed by police when taking photos of them (there were police at this protest too, but I didn’t want to invite trouble by photographing them) but you’re well within your rights to do that as well. There are of course exceptions to these rules as the link describes but for the most part as long as you’re sensible about what kinds of pictures you’re taking you won’t be any legal trouble.

Still it’s always something that niggles at the back of my head and I think that’s one of the reasons I’ve shied away from any kind of photography in a public place.I know I’m in the right legally I can’t shake the feeling that I’ll get accosted by people when taking photos near them, even if I’m not pointing the camera directly at them. I did get a couple looks (the Canon 60D with a 24-105mm F/4L lens and a 480 EX II SpeedLite can be a rather imposing beast to look at) but no one really seemed to care that much that I was taking pictures so that feeling is probably just more of my introverted side coming out more than anything else. Maybe my next challenge should be street photography to work that part out.

I don’t have anything to show you just yet as I don’t like to shoot in JPG + RAW because it seems redundant and the codec pack I’ve got for viewing RAWs doesn’t work on the x64 version of Windows 7. I’ve bought myself a copy of Lightroom though so once I get that installed and get comfortable with the interface you’ll then be relentlessly spammed with all the photographs from the weekend and I might update this post with a few choice shots from my little jaunt. Whilst it might not have been the most pleasurable experience (it was rather cold) it was definitely a learning one and it’s something that I’ll be looking to repeat in the not too distant future.

Was That Really Necessary, Sony?

Whilst I might be an unapologetic Sony fan boy even I can’t hide from their rather troubled past when it comes to customer relations. Of course everyone will remember their latest security incident which saw millions of PSN accounts breached but they’ve also had other fun incidents involving auto-installing root kits as copy protection and suing people into silence. Of course every corporation has its share of misgivings but Sony seems to have somewhat of a habit of getting themselves into hot water on a semi-regular basis with their actions. This week brings us another chapter in the saga that is the people vs Sony corporation, but it’s not as bad as it first seems.

Last week saw Sony update their PSN agreement which happens with nearly every system update that the PlayStation 3 receives. However this time around there was a particular clause that wasn’t in there previously, specifically one that could prevent class action lawsuits:

Sony has been hit with a number of class-action lawsuits since the launch of the PlayStation 3, mostly due to the decision to retroactively remove Linux support from the console and losing the data of users due to questionable security practices. Sony has another solution to this problem beyond beefing up security (and it’s not retaining the features you paid for): if you accept the next mandatory system update, you sign away your ability to take part in a class-action lawsuit. The only option left for consumers if they agree is binding individual arbitration.

ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER IN ARBITRATION OR COURT, WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR AS A NAMED OR UNNAMED MEMBER IN A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGAL ACTION, UNLESS BOTH YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO DO SO IN WRITING FOLLOWING INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION. THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011.

Accompanying that particular section is a clause that allows you to opt out of this particular section of the agreement but you have to send a snail mail letter to what I assume to be Sony’s legal department in Los Angeles. On the surface this appears to rule out any further class action suits that Sony might face in the future, at least in the majority of cases where people simply click through without reading the fine print. Digging through a couple articles (and one insightful Hacker News poster) on it however I don’t think that this is all it’s cracked up to be, in fact it might have been wholly unnecessary for Sony to do it in the first place.

The clause explicitly excludes small claims which can be up to thousands of dollars. Now I’ve never been involved in any class action suits myself but the ones I’ve watched unfold online usually end up with all affected parties receiving extremely small pay offs, on the order of tens or hundreds of dollars. If you take Sony hacking case as an example a typical out of pocket expenditure for a victim of identity theft is approximately $422 (in 2006), much lower than the threshold for small claims. Considering that Sony already provided identity fraud insurance for everyone affected by the PSN hack it seems like a moot point anyway.

Indeed the arbitration clause seems to be neither here or there for Sony either with the new clause binding both parties to the arbitrator’s decision, rendering them unable to contest it in a higher court. The arbitration can also occur anywhere in the USA so that people won’t have to travel to Sony in order to have their case heard. The clause also doesn’t affect residents of Europe or Australia further limiting its reach. All in all it seems like it tackles a very narrow band of potential cases, enough so that it barely seems necessary for Sony to even put it in.

Honestly I feel that it’s more that given their track record Sony has to be extremely careful with anything they do that could be construed as being against their consumers. The arbitration clause, whilst looking a lot like a storm in a teacup, just adds fuel to the ever burning flamewar that revolves around Sony being out to screw everyone over. Hopefully they take this as a cue to rework their PR strategies so that these kind of incidents can be avoided in the future as I don’t think their public image can take many more beatings like this.