Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:30 PM 9/24/99 -0500, Paul Schiemer wrote: >What I've been trying to discern is only about the taking of the photo, not >what is done with it after. The right to publish doesn't make breaking the >law to get the photo righteous. >I couldn't imagine a professional photojournalist having occluded two >precepts allowing the misconception their rights supercede another persons. No, Paul, you are right. I wasn't using precise language. You are right, you have every right to tell me no. And I accept that. But you have no right to stop me physically from taking your picture, as long as I don't threaten you in a way that the court deems inappropriate. As long as you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. in your back yard and I'm in a helicopter using an 800mm lens to pry). Try to go beyond that, and I just might sue for assault. But likely that won't go that far, because I'm not that kind of photographer. I do my job, but not to the point of abusing a person. I do not consider ignoring a mother's request for not putting a picture in the paper as abuse. If I did consider what I was about to do abuse, I wouldn't do it, job or no job. I can't tell you how many times I've had a policeman pull someone off me, or a colleague, and say "Ma'am (or Sir), he's just doing his job, leave him alone." The press has to be free to tell the story it deems necessary. Is there abuse in that? Unfortunately, yes. But that's the price of freedom. Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control!