Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Here's one "flip side situation" for the "street photography" record: In a weekly local newspaper, last month, they put up "punk" "Charlie", 21 years old, rather long hair, British style hat (those "round" things, like Abbott & Costello ), photogenic young man, bare chested, making a grin and a "fuck U", conventional angle, about 8 " x 10 " B&W, front page with real heavy negative text and title that no more no less imply that "Charlie" is a do-nothing worthless bum "typical" of the de-motivated drop-out "rising generation" ... in Quebec even, (with "our" Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that spells out an "either / or" written release prior to publication or face serious invasion of privacy damages suits with a favorable "slant" towards the plaintiff ) , of all places . Fact is, "Charlie" is a kind, helpful, non-violent fellow who is VERY sick with an epileptic condition, all "punk" that he may be or "look like", not all that "welfare type person" they portrayed him as, "like those other downtown punks" . . . His medical condition could take his life the next moment . . . as he told me some time back ( i'm writing about punk society, values, world views, etc ... ), and he is currently under medical supervision and medication [ ! ] . Everybody was talking about the real heavy article and "Charlie" is not all that happy about the situation that makes him appear FAR worse than he really is, even if he most definitely is not and never will be a Hugo Boss or Tommy Hilfiger person, as far as i can understand, and stuck on welfare because he simply can't work with such a "high risk" health condition. Just the fact that he "fuck U" the photographer on the published photograph is explicit enough that a "release" never would have happened ! And no one would ever doubt the photographer most definitely was NOT welcome to "click it" ! Quite obvious. To be true, i informed him about the Supreme Court jurisprudence now applicable as law in Quebec, and gave him a general backgrounder on his Civil Law rights (Quebec is a Civil Law country versus Common Law for the remainder of Canada (and USA, UK), a "carry-over" from our pre-1756 French ancestry, with complex legal issues that make numerous differences for people who live in Quebec, a good place to be ). "Charlie" has a year from date of publication of the ridiculous issue to "do something about it", as his "personal image" and self-esteem suffer greatly from the real scorching text. ( It may even be two years, i'd have to confirm. ) Seems to me there are morons, a photographer, an editor, and newspaper owner, who may be in for a major awakening to the fact you just don't destroy people's reputations this way, even if it was "only" to use a "typical" out-of-work youth for "graphic" purposes or to facilitate higher circulation and sales volumes . . . I hope, for them, they have real solid Civil Responsibility insurance and bonds . This is one that's going to make a major media $plash, 100 % guaranteed . "Charlie" is not really all that legally cognizant but quite easily could have succeeded College or a technical course. Money is NOT a priority for him but he's not THAT dumb, either ! Quite the contrary, all told : one witty punk ! I can just imagine the defendants' attornies having to P-R-O-V-E "Charlie" is INDEED what the texts generalized about, including the acid captions under the "hot" photo and "how come" such a graphic photo "surfaced" without a publication release. May i propose that, for photographers, minimal mutual respect would seem appropriate, even if the subject looks exactly like what one's prejudices are related to, fixated upon . That's another dimension to this whole "street photography" topic : r-e-s-p-e-c-t ! Even "self-respect" for the would be "pro" ! Andre Jean Quintal