Re: [Leica] Re: important court ruling [LONG]

[dannyg1 <dannyg1@IDT.NET>]

Tom,

> Danny, I am not in favor of the ruling, but every law can be an invitation to
> violence.  There are many laws I do not like, but civilized people obey the
> law, whether we like it or not.

Absolutely true,  but there are certain emotional aspects to this law that are brain 
processed in the same sense that personal security issues are (and probably along the 
same pathways). For some arcane, instinctual reason, people have a deep seated fear of 
cameras and, as in the generalized notion that the photographer 'steals a piece of your 
soul', there is no rational explanation of why people emotionally confuse cameras with 
the same adrenaline rising response as to, say a man wearing a holstered gun. 

Before anyone starts scoffing at that analogy, explore your own reaction to coming upon 
a photographer on the street. We do tend to pay an inordinate level of attention to what 
they're doing. Some may see that as an innocent interest, but I don't think it is. 

Depending upon the instant impression the equipment (and the photographer) makes 
on the person (eating his ice cream cone), suddenly aware of the photographer, an alarm 
trigger goes off and the ICCEater sees himself, on a very real level, as 'prey'. I believe 
that this is the affront that this case is in answer to.

I never read your opinion as agreeing with the case law and though your intention was 
clear, I can't agree that this law is about being served a 'ticket' or only being sued. I am 
still interested to hear how you, as a lawyer, see the resulting performance being played 
out.

A photographer bearing his M6 snaps a photo of Dan, eating his ICC on the steps of a 
public building, sunny spring day. What happens next?

Regards,
Danny Gonzalez