[Leica] Re: Photo Vultures (didtoday,getalife) [no Leica]

["Paul Schiemer" <schiemer@magicnet.net>]

    Eric Welch originally said this
>> >his mother stepped in front of me and said "I don't want a picture of him in
>> >the paper." She was obviously in distress, and not thinking clearly...
    my reply was this
>>1st; telling you this was sufficient to make you stop. Legally, you are
>>bound to comply with the request (which is not about the 'taking' of the
>>photo, but the use of it afterward).
    to which Eric responded:
> You are completely and TOTALLY wrong. On both points. Number one, legally,
> not even the police can stop me from photographing. ...Her request has no
>legal weight.
See, that's where I believe you missed the point I was trying to make:
It's not the taking of the photo but the use of it afterward.
In a public place it is one thing to acquire an image, but, prior to it
being published, if you are informed by the subject of the photograph they
do NOT want it used, then you have a responsibility to acquiesce to the
request.

I believe there are certain limits to 'use' after 'notification', but do not
know for certain.

Eric further wrote this:
> Our job is to tell the news. If that photo will make other kids
> think about safely riding their bikes, if only one does, then I've done my
> job.
But isn't that statement an admission of a higher goal than originally
stated? Your job is JUST to tell the news, not modify behavior. It is a
curious dichotomy.
(hey, and thanks for the new word "sophistry", excellent!)

I wrote (but wasn't speaking specifically of Eric- it was meant to be
rhetorical):
>>You also don't have to subject anyone to rude behavior just because they
>>happen to be in public. No means no. Overstep that boundary, that then could
>>be considered assault. What happens after that is photographers fault.
Assault is (again by my limited knowledge of the law) an attack. If a
photographer invades a personal space, causing the subject to become
fearful, that then is assault.  [Battery, on the other hand, is when it
becomes physical, to blows, whatever].

Let's say a photographer steps into a scene hoping to depict action in a
truthful manner, simply reporting tragic circumstance as newsworthy.
A mother pleads with the photographer, "I don't want a picture of my boy in
your paper" ....in that terrible condition -bent, broken, bleeding (nobody
really wants their last image of a loved one to be a horrific rendition like
that).
Photographer is insistent that his intentions are pure and altruistic; goes
ahead and shoots his pictures, and the photo runs.
Does the mother have grounds to sue the photographer and the paper because
of the pain and suffering she endured (after the fact), and would the
photographer and paper be liable for running the photo without release or
expressed permission? As a matter of fact; many persons heard the mother
tell the photographer she did not want a picture of her boy in the paper (it
would come out in our hypothetical court).

It's an interesting legal point, one that has some bearing on the issue.