What’s your state bar number?

Oh, you don’t have one. Reading books written by photographs does not a lawyer make.

This is the level of commentary I’ve come to expect from Michael Arrington, and I’m glad that I haven’t been let down.

What, pray tell, is your legal background? Other than merely insulting the views of anybody who disagrees with you?

I hate to break it to you, but any photography on PRIVATE property is ENTIRELY up to the landlord. They have the right to exclude you from the property for any reason, and can set any conditions on your use of their property. If this particular tradeshow allows photography then photography is allowed. But there’s no global rule that photographers have the right to photograph anything they want at private tradeshows on private property. There simply is no right. And there are plenty of other tradeshows that lawfully enforce such a rule.

Intelligently, the Web 2.0 Expo has no policy prohibiting photography at the conference, especially on the Expo floor. There are literally thousands of cameras snapping photos throughout the day. This is not an uncommon thing at a tech conference, especially one of this size, and Google definitely would have known about this.

Had Google really had a problem with this, and not the situation was caused by a “miscommunication” to booth staff as it was put to me, they should have not had a booth in the Expo hall.

The property does not belong to Google, so if they want private property rights asserted here, they’re going to have to ask the owners of the facility to expressly forbid photography on the show floor.

I highly doubt that’s reasonable or practical given the nature of the show - and further, I doubt it would be acceptable to the other participants, most of whom would be delighted to have their booths photographed.

No, you don’t have a right to photograph anything you’d like at a private tradeshow on private property. The people who run the show can very easily make “no photograph” a condition of entry, or make “photography only on request” a condition of entry.

If this were out on a sidewalk then the photographer would probably be right — it’s hard to limit photography of things that are visible from public. But this isn’t outside or in public. This is inside, at a private tradeshow.

There is no generic right to photograph anything you want while you are an invited guest on private property. If the people who invited you onto the premises say that a condition of attending the show is to not photograph anything then you have no such right. If they say that a condition of entry to the show is to respect the wishes of booth owners, then you have no right to photograph if they’ve said no.

I don’t know why people think that having a blog puts them above both law and common courtesy.

I’m with Peter - pure marketing spin.

Peter

You mean “neither.” Me neither.

The TM is missing from the Google logo.

It’s a brand requirement thingy PR people obsess over.

http://twitpic.com/j43

They probably had it planned… “let’s get Arrington pissed, I bet they’ll write about google if we act a little evil”