Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] feb shutterbug
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:11:53 -0500

> The question is whether, when hired by an organization

I don't believe who hired him is of any consequence to his legal
responsibility...

> to shoot their apparently illegal action, the PHOTOGRAPHER is a
> part of the
> illegal action, or can in some convoluted way claim the
> protection of being
> a JOURNALIST.

It depends on what the "illegal action" is.  If he was trespassing, then he
was trespassing.  If he was shooting pictures of, say, a bank robbery...then
he'd hardly be considered party to the illegal action(s)...unless he knew
about the proposed activity beforehand, and that it was illegal, I guess he
could be considered an accomplice.

I don't believe there is any protection for a photojournalist if s/he is
actually DOING something illegal, they should be subject to the same laws as
everyone else is...but just taking pictures of an illegal activity doesn't
make you party to the activity in and of it self I don't believe.

What about newspaper reporters who have information (like specifics about a
hit or a robbery), aren't they protected from revealing their sources, and
the details of the information, per se?  I guess one could make a convoluted
argument for protection?

Austin

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] feb shutterbug)