RE: [Leica] Re- Clementine

[Phong <phong@doan-ltd.com>]

Don,

"lecturing", "control freaks", these are fighting words.
I didn't have the impression that Kim was "lecturing" anybody;
as I remember it, the issue that she raised was that of 
courtesy, not legal.  Someone else commented on Gerry's 
post, and used the word "stupid"; that is much more contentious.

There are a few on the LUG whose photography I appreciate at the
highest level.   Gerry is one of them, and I regret his decision not
to post any longer.  Be that as it may, I definitely think that Gerry
overreacted; and it may not even be to Kim's post.  

And this has nothing to do with Kim's Leica photos, so I don't see
the point of your asking.

- - Phong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Don R.
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:18 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re- Clementine
> 
> 
> Kim:
> 
> And what business of yours was it to lecture a specific photographer about
> anything much less legal matters? If you don't have a state bar license I
> seriously doubt your are qualified to give a legal opinion and may be guilty
> of  barristery.
> 
> Just the typical "control freak" wanting to control one more human being I
> take it.
> 
> If  "model release" is an "issue for potential discussion"  as you now say,
> why not give us your dissertation but leave the specific photographer out of
> it.  Then you may ramble on with no harm being done.
> 
> Let the specific photographer alone. Let him do his thing.
> 
> By the way, where are your Leica photos?
> 
> Don R.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Teresa299@aol.com>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re- Clementine
> 
> 
> >
> > In a message dated 9/30/02 4:59:19 PM, gregj.lorenzo@shaw.ca writes:
> >
> > << I agree!
> >
> > Pascal wrote:
> >
> > >On 30-09-2002 17:32 Neal Friedenthal wrote:
> > >
> > >>I usually avoid jumping in on these "controversial" threads, but I have
> to
> > do
> > >>so here. While I have no problems with the image itself, it is quite
> nice
> > and
> > >>very
> > >>tastefully done, everyone seems to have missed one important issue,
> > Clementine
> > >>is only 17 years old. At 17 she is below the age of concent.  Her parent
> or
> > >>guardian would have to give permission for the picture to be posted or
> for
> > >>that matter taken. The photographer has left himself open for possible
> civil
> > >>or even
> > >>criminal action should the girl or her parents object to the photo. To
> > >>photograph a minor, nude, without parental permission and supervision
> leaves
> > >>the
> > >>photographer open to a charge of statutory rape even if, as I'm sure is
> the
> > >>case here, nothing more happened than the photo session.  To take the
> photo
> > >>even
> > >>with parental concent would in my opinion be ill advised, to post it
> without
> > >>permission is downright stupid.  Believe me I am no prude, but I am a
> > realist
> > >>you have
> > >>to cover your butt in this world.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I think that those who had a concern over this should have better
> contacted
> > >Gerry directly via private email instead of stirring up yet another
> debate
> > >in the LUG.
> > >
> > >Pascal
> > >NO ARCHIVE
> > > >>
> >
> >
> > I understand that the LUG has been irrationally contentious of late, but I
> > certainly hope that in the spirit of civility the LUG doesn't become a
> hollow
> > shell of yes-men and a few women.
> >
> > I raised the issue of consent not as a form of bashing Gerry on the head
> but
> > simply expressing that in my mind it's a common courtesy to ask a nude
> > subject's consent before posting his or her photo on the web.   Whilst I
> > could have emailed Gerry directly, why would I?  Neither my point nor my
> post
> > was intended or contructed to embarass the man, rather it's an issue of
> > potential discussion.
> >
> > If simple discussion of issues on the LUG has automatically become equated
> > with controversy I'm hard pressed to see which is worse, unending
> bickering
> > or the silent death that befalls a community of folks afraid to speak.
> >
> >
> > -kim
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> >
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html