Re: [Leica] Copyright questions

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

Lucian Griffith writes:

> She waved a "copyright form" in my face and
> told me that now that I'd taken a photo I would
> have to fill it in and sign it.

A "copyright form," eh?  Hmm ... that's a new one.

I was refused admittance to a museum not long ago because I had a camera.  The
receptionist insisted I check the camera.  I refused to do so, and instead
decided to leave.  The receptionist asked if I didn't trust them to take good
care of the camera.  Well, that's exactly it!  I don't trust them!  They cannot
even trust me to walk through their museum without taking a picture, so why
should I put thousands of dollars' worth of equipment on a shelf behind the
receptionist and trust that it will still be there when I return?

> I've also been in a similar situation in a
> department store (Myer Melbourne) when, after
> taking one photograph of rows and rows of
> identically arranged shoes was promptly told
> by a security guard that this was verboten, and that
> I should put away my camera immediately!

My goodness!  I guess CNN will have to do without that photo, eh?

When carrying an SLR, I am routinely told by security guards in various private
businesses not to take pictures.  However, they don't say anything if I'm
carrying a Leica.  Clearly, in their minds, Leicas cannot possibly be used to
take "serious" photos--they are much too small and archaic-looking!

> IMHO the apparent fear that seems to grip public
> attendants in these places viz "copyright" is
> akin to South Pacific "natives" fearing the loss
> or diminishment of their soul if photographed.
> It gets on my nerves.

The actual reason, I think, is an extension of the paranoia and fear that infect
anyone who watches a lot of television news.  I've seen studies in the past
showing that the more a person watches television, the more suspicious and
fearful he is of the world around him, and the more pessimistic he is on the
state and future of the world.  This is no surprise, as that's exactly what
television news talks about, all the time; in order to maintain viewer ratings,
one must be persuaded to continue watching the news, and the best way to do that
is to frighten or worry viewers, so that they keep watching in the hope of
obtaining reassurance.

I fixed this problem in my own case by simply ceasing to watch TV, and it has
worked very well.  And the world has not become any more dangerous as a result,
nor has my lack of minute-by-minute information on every bad event occurring
everywhere in the world had any detrimental effect on my life.

Yesterday, I was accosted by a group of young girls who _insisted_ that I had
taken their picture while they were sitting on a bench, and they told me that
they didn't like that.  In fact, I hadn't taken a picture of anyone anywhere,
and I still don't understand what gave them this impression.  As it is, there
would be nothing illegal or even actionable about photographing them on public
right-of-way, but I did not bother to point that out, since I had not taken any
photo in the first place.  I told them that we could go to a police station
together, develop the film, and if their image was on it, we could talk (I
didn't bother to mention that there would be little to talk about, since it
wouldn't be illegal)--whereas if their image did not appear, it would be
defamation, false witness, and whatever else I could think up to sue their
parents for.  They decided that they did not wish to pursue the matter, which
was a wise decision on their part, as I was not bluffing.  I did develop the
photos later, and there is no picture of them, so apparently the camera (an SLR,
by the way, since yesterday was not a Leica day) did not decide to take any
secret pictures of anyone without my approval--which would have been difficult
through the lens cap, anyway.

I wonder how much television news those girls watch?