Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:16 PM 9/4/97 -0500, you wrote: >allow a good vantage point. I think that's wrong. Isn't there peeping >tom laws that apply? Yes, there are, so no need for new laws. >If celebs are on a street, in a park or any other public places, >they're fair game, so to speak although a 10, 20 or 30 ft. law might be >nice. No, the distance rule would certainly restrict Paparazzi, but it would also unduly restrict legitimate photojournalists, because some stupid lawyer (Sorry Marc! Well, not really, it doesn't apply to you!) would try to use it out of context. >This whole issue is kind of ironic when you consider how much of a pain >it is to get "modeling" releases on stuff that pays didly and these >pap's get thousands for sneaking shots of celebs on their own private >property. Is it just me or is something rather stupid with the system. Believe me, Paparazzi for the most pare don't make that much money, which is why they go nuts on the few subjects that can make them "the big score." Editorial has never paid as well (on a day-to-day basis) as commercial and advertising photography, where model releases are required. And do you know why model releases are required for that and not editorial? Because the courts do not want to restrict the press. And they won't in this case. Any attempt to restrict the press is a fools errand. In the U.S. anyway. The courts know the terrible implications. That is the last comment I'm going to make on this subject. Let's stop beating a dead horse and get back to the fun stuff! Please? - --------------------- Eric Welch Grants Pass, OR Exaggeration is not all it's cracked up to be.