Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan C. wrote; The above ruling involved a photograph of a (17-year-old student) woman sitting on the doorstep of a building and used to illustrate a story on urban life. Was she "in a high-profile role...blah, blah"? Obviously 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. =20 Dan, if you don't already you should be living in one of these antisocial gated communities that have spread like a lesions thruought Southern California. Yes, privacy is a right that belongs to the public, LIKE THE RIGHT TO A FREE PRESS. The right to a free press doesn't belong to the journalist, it belongs to the public, and you need to protect it. But you would see it gone for such a silly reason. Being photographed does you no harm. The publication of the photograph does you no harm. Such litigious, selfish attitudes will be the downfall of us all. Dave Y.