Disclaimer by Hotel Normandy, Trinidad and Tobago
I assume the Hotel was advised by competent attorneys about the sequence of words and format of this disclaimer.It sounds and looks desperate to me. I suppose even buildings and flag poles paid for with taxpayers’ dollars have feelings too.
If I stay in my yard and effortlessly take a few dozen photos of my neighbor climbing her plum tree in her favorite hole-ridden shorts then that should not be considered illegal though her shorts may be considered immoral by the religious and the afraid. If I jump over the fence to get a better shot of her, that would be illegal, I assume, but fun, I am sure. If a friend comes to my home and takes the same photos with his image-stabilized, 12x zoom without asking my permission then I may have to place a disclaimer notice in the newspaper after he publishes the photo in the Sunday Punch or any similarly scandalous tabloid just to save face.
Note: She (neighbor) was not wearing a shorts that was bought with taxpayers’ dollars and she is living in her own home which she pays the mortgage using her own funds and not taxpayers’ dollars. She does consider herself special but she is almost never arrogant or swells up like a bullfrog in public. She also has no flag poles in her yard but has one or two Chinese friends.
I have no idea what is legal or not in photography. It’s so confusing and fun.
(10)
11 responses so far ↓
bandi // November 7, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
OGO… the politics… steups…
btw when yuh posting some ah dem immoral shorts fuh we tuh see… i eh go tell… neither complain…
aka_lol // November 7, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
I am working on the disclaimer first
aka_lol // November 7, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
I think publishing the photos might be wrong since she was in her back yard and will not be expecting a Peeping Tom Photographer to be invading her privacy. Now, if she was in her front porch in a bikini…
Jumbie // November 7, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
The law is pretty plain on how, when and where you can take photographs.
If the photographer was in the premises of the hotel, then the hotel and its grounds (defined by its own boundaries) are out of bounds unless she has permission of the hotel’s management.
Any photographs taken out of the hotel’s premises would therefore be legal.
In this case I guess the Hotel is just covering its ass.
Your neighbour’s holey shorts might be immoral and fun (isn’t it always?) but not illegal in her yard.
aka_lol // November 7, 2009 at 10:09 pm |
I am not sure what laws apply in TnT for photography but even in the US and the UK photographers are challenged by the local duncys for taking photographs of public places from public places.
Jumbie // November 7, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
By the way, since the premises in question is the official home of the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, and not his private residence, I doubt it comes under the same category of privacy.
More so since neither the Prime Minister, nor his family were in the photos, I can’t see an invasion of privacy taking place.
aka_lol // November 7, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
That’s the point. The Hotel seems to have been roughed up by some legal people.
Chennette // November 7, 2009 at 8:09 pm |
now if they had said, this potential breach of national security in taking photos of how one could use the Normandie to launch an attack on PMPM…
aka_lol // November 7, 2009 at 10:10 pm |
It’s easier to launch a proper attack of PM PM from the media. It’s more fun as well
Liane // November 15, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
Crikes. Glad you’re not my neighbour. It’s bad enough having to dodge my son’s camera in my own home.
aka_lol // November 16, 2009 at 9:54 am |
It’s easy to love a neighbor with the right plums