Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]OK. Everyone is right (and Anthony is cogent as well). Photographs are not a physical assault, but photographers can be. We all have human feelings and sensibilities. Still, once light bounces off you and hits me, it ceases to be yours. I have every right to just stand there and collect it as it hits me, or my camera. You also have that right. If you don't want me to see and store your image in my brain or on film, you have to keep the light to yourself and prevent it from bouncing off of you. Of course, if I create the light with a flash, then any photons that hit you ARE an assault... Mike Quinn - ---------- >From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> >To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Subject: Re: [Leica] <no Leica> Photo Vultures >Date: Fri, Sep 24, 1999, 4:47 PM > >> If I tell you not to, there's nothing wrong with that. >> If you persist, thereby escalating the situation, then >> I have certain additional rights to protect myself from >> physical harm. > > Taking a picture is not physically harmful. > >> If you thrust your lens into my face in a threatening >> manner (and all it has to be is threatening to me) I have >> every right to protect myself with whatever action I >> deem appropriate at the time. > > If this is an allusion to some sort of physical violence, I think you might find > it difficult to defend that in court. Hitting someone just because he is > pointing a camera at you can land you in jail in some jurisdictions. > >> Unless your privilege of gathering news precludes my right >> to pass freely on the street, or protect myself from attack? > > Being photographed is not a physical attack. > >> The right to publish doesn't make breaking the >> law to get the photo righteous. > > An aversion to being photographed does not justify a physical attack. > > -- Anthony