Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:30 AM 13-04-98 -0700, Dave wrote: >Disfromage wrote: > >> ... the subject Pascale-Claude Aubry, sued because she said her >> classmates laughed at her at the time. > > >It's astounding that some people believe they've got a guarantee >to go through life and have everyone else watch out for the >slightest possible thing that could offend them. But what right does someone have to sell newspapers or magazines at someone elses expense? Why should this girl have to justify the problems caused to her from unauthorized publication of her photograph to illustrate a magazine article that didn't involve a hard news item? Why should the onus be on her? Get back to my example of a newspaper publishing a photograph of myself eating an icecream cone in a park, in order to illustrate an article on the comming of springtime. Such an article serves no purpose other than to make the newspaper more interesting (OK, this is a bit of a stretch!) for its readers, and thus to increase readership. Why can the newspaper do this without input from me? No one has the moral right to walk up to me in public, take my photograph, and use it to sell newspapers, without my permission. Dan C.