Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/21[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Ted Grant writes: > By the same token, folks do have a right not > to have their pictures taken if they do not > wish to have it happen, open mall or no open > mall. That depends on the circumstances and on the jurisdiction. On public property, for example, and in public view, in most jurisdictions, a person _cannot_ object to being photographed, under most circumstances. The right to information overrides the right of the individual to object. This is based on the fact that a person moving about in public already exposes himself to the view of others, and taking photographs is just an extension of this same exposure. If you do not work to protect this right, eventually you cannot take any photograph of anything at all without a nearly infinite number of advance authorizations. That is where the current trend is headed, and I should think that any photographer would be very alarmed by it, as it will eventually put him out of business. > Like, just don't try to take my picture ... > "with out me knowing what you are taking the > pictures for!" you could have a bad headache > for sometime to come. ;-) The violence to which you allude is a far more serious crime than any taking of a picture (when taking a picture is a crime at all, which it generally is not). Odd that this violence is so readily condoned, but not the innocent act that appears to elicit it. > ... certainly with the sicko's in the world today > using photography to make contact for nefarious > activities. What sickos, and what activities? Was this something on CNN?