[Leica] Paying to shoot

[richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard)]

Frank, in this country, we have a saying "Question Authority." Actually, 
generally 99.99% of the time, I have no problem with just doing what I am 
told. No big deal. 12 items or less in a Express Checkout. No problem. Let 
people out from the elevator first. Check. Wash my hands after using the 
facility etc.

However, not all commands should be blindly followed, and it's not a simple 
case of "follow the order since it is the ethical thing to do." To take an 
extreme example, the Chinese government would certainly not want the Tank 
person's photo to reach out the world. If you are the photographer, is it 
unethical to release the pictures for all to see? In fact, is it unethical 
to question the authority and stand in front of the tank even though your 
life may be at stake?

The same thing still applies a Historical Site. First of all, is it 
something worth so much that it is worth a debate? For me, most likely I 
will not take any photos if they say no photos, and then move on. OTOH, 
lets say it really mean something to you that you need to consider the 
case, then it is far more deeper than just follow the rules. One can argue 
that Historical Sites do not belong to a single governing agent but is a 
heritage for all the people of the world. I am not necessarily on one side 
or the other, just raising arguments that it is not as clear cut as you put 
it.

At 07:31 PM 7/16/2006, Frank Filippone wrote:

>Tina..
>You dodged the question....  You have been specifically told not to take 
>pictures for professional purposes.... what do you do?  You
>have the right to argue.  I will defend that right, politely used and to 
>the correct authorities.  The question is:  Do you take the
>pictures after being told not to?  ( Note that it makes no difference WHY 
>you are being told not to not take the pictures.... you
>have been officially informed not to.)
>
>If the facility says no pictures, you do not have the right nor the 
>license to take nor to use those pictures, no matter the
>purpose.  In fact, you have been specifically told that you do not have 
>the right.  .  Is this an incorrect statement?
>
>BTW, Ted was inside the Historical Site doing stock not newspaper 
>photography..... not exactly public property, and he was overseas
>( Italy) where the rules and legal rights of the individual may and 
>probably are different than the US or Canada.....  Not the
>issue... you are told specifically not to take the pictures.  You have no 
>license to do so....  You do not own the right to sell
>those pictures.....
>
>The comment on the thief is to bring to light that no matter what your job 
>is, it does not change the rules of ethics.  It has
>nothing do with theft.
>
>I have no problem with no signs and no rules in force and you do as you 
>want.  But it is your obligation as a professional supplier
>that you have the legal right to transfer the rights of the picture to the 
>user ( advertising agency for example).  Ignorance  of
>the rules of the house, is no excuse.  You can not transfer what you do 
>not own.
>
>I think you pointed out that you do not ask permission... so, in those 
>cases, you have nothing in writing?
>
>Back to the question... ::::
>
>You have been specifically and officially told to refrain from taking 
>pictures for professional purposes.... ......Your ethical
>response is to do what?

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)