Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:20 PM 4/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >not. Why didn't the freelance photographer get her permission? Unless I >am in the middle of robbing a bank, what gives a newspaper the right to >publish my photograph without my permission? I should be able to relax in >the park eating an ice-cream cone, and not have to worry about seeing my >picture in the paper the next day. > >I DO see this as a good thing. This is not a good thing. Why? Because Henri Cariter-Bresson would be in prison, and all those great pictures wouldn't exist. If you want privacy, stay home. That's where the law guarantees it. What's gives us the right? The fact that you know when you step out the door that we're out there documenting the world. As a photographer, I often take a person's picture without their permission because their awareness of being photographed often destroys the mood. It's not always possible, but often really pays off. Most people are flattered to be considered worthy of being photographed. But if they object, after I've taken it and finally ask permission, I don't use the photo. We pretty much require getting names for photos, and if the person really objects to be in the paper, they just have to not give us their name. Unless it's a newsworthy event, or they are newsworthy for what they are doing or who they are, that pretty much kills it. But to require permission before taking the picture will never fly. Thank goodness. We have to act in the bounds of legality. We can't harass a subject already. New laws will change nothing. ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch How do I set my laser printer on stun?