[Leica] Paying to shoot

[red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone)]

Tina...... Do you still take the pictures to use for professional purposes 
after being specifically told that you have no license to
take those pictures for professional purposes?  What justification can you 
use?

What would you say to your client if he got a big fat law suit for using 
your picture, which you sold for his use for $1 ( or any
other amount)?  That is the professional ethic involved.  The moral ethic is 
simpler.... if you are told not to take pictures, why
do you ( not a personal comment) persist in taking pictures?  What rationale 
can you use?

There is an ethical issue here. 

Using an analogy....
I am a professional jewel thief.  Because I make my living in this specific 
business, all rules concerning my taking of your jewelry
from your store are null and void.  Besides, you charge too much for the 
diamonds you sell.

Make sense?  Hell no.  So why does your particular line of business affect 
your obeying the rules of a location you have entered?
If you know the rules going in, you are morally required to follow those 
rules, no matter how stupid, overpriced, or otherwise not
in agreement with your beliefs or life experiences.

Ethics are really pretty simple... if you are told not to do something, and 
you knowingly do it anyway, it is breakdown in your
ethical behavior.  If you try to justify it based on your profession, the 
relative value of the opportunity, or on the time-space
continuum, you are making excuses for your bad behavior.

The good part about ethics is that it is usually between you and the Man 
upstairs, 

unless the lawyers find out first.....


Frank Filippone
red735i@earthlink.net 

Why?  I'm a member of both NPPA - National Press Photographers 
Association - and SAA - Stock Artists Alliance.  I don't always know 
when I take photograph how it will be used.  Why should the rules be 
different?  I don't pay and will never pay for access to any photos.

Tina