Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/04[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Allow me to offer my very simple equation on why the Quebec ruling is harmful to the press and to the public: 1. If the courts open the door to frivolous lawsuits such as this, do not be so naive as to think this will be an isolated incident or that it will affect only photography. Anybody hoping to make a buck will push this ridiculous interperetation of privacy to the nth degree and the publications' resources will be going to lawyers instead of journalists. Not to mention the damping effect it will have on editors when they're faced with an important but litigious subject. 2. The court has apparantly decided to extend its jurisdiction into determining what constitutes a news photograph. Their limited understading of the media is astounding. At what point is an individual no longer the "subject" of a photograph, for example? What percentage of the frame? And big must the news be to be news? What's not news to a big paper is big news to a small weekly. If it were a sunny day and someone was sitting out in the sun after a month of El Nino, seems to me that might constitute news. But I couldn't find that caveat in the ruling, so what the heck, better just stick to shooting the things they declared safe in the ruling. I don't remember the photographer's name, but in one of our S. California Photo Nights a Reuters photographer told about her coverage of the civil war in Liberia, and how when she was threatened or blocked from doing her job, clusters of Liberians would come to her rescue, telling the troublemakers that freedom of the press is very important. Those who hope to build a democracy from ashes know where to begin. On another note, I understand there is no tangible answer, but could someone explain to me the most basic intereperetation of "bokeh?" What the heck is it?