Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:04 PM 9/21/99 -0500, Paul Schiemer wrote: >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. Not in the US. That's called prior restraint, and is unconstitutional here. But you are right in one point. Never do I ever edit in camera. I may choose later not to use a picture for a variety of reasons. But if I don't have it, I can't use it. But just because someone doesn't want me to use a picture that is legitimately news (or not, but that's another topic) is immaterial. If it is news, then with good judgement or not (hoping I will always use good judgement like I did for this situation), I have every right to use it - legally. Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch "The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes