[Leica] Paying to shoot

[images at InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley)]

At 06:47 PM 7/16/2006, you wrote:
>Tina...... Do you still take the pictures to use for professional 
>purposes after being specifically told that you have no license to
>take those pictures for professional purposes?  What justification 
>can you use?

No.  I follow the philosophy of "don't ask permission, ask 
forgiveness"  Usually, if I don't ask, nobody hassles me.  I'm a 
60-year-old grandmother and I don't use tripods, flash, or long 
lenses.  If I am not told not to photograph, I ask why not.  I will 
fight for the right to photograph anything from public property.  The 
recent restrictions on photography for security reasons usually have 
absolutely no basis in fact and can be easily argued against.


>What would you say to your client if he got a big fat law suit for 
>using your picture, which you sold for his use for $1 ( or any
>other amount)?

If any releases are required, I get them.  Otherwise, any photos made 
on public property can be sold for editorial use.  That's 
fine.  Nobody needs a release for any editorial use unless there are 
pejorative implications in the caption or description of your 
photo.  If it is implied in the caption or article that goes along 
with your photo that the person in the photo is a drug user or unwed 
mother or anything else that might be considered pejorative, you'd 
better have a signed release saying that use is authorized; 
otherwise, it is within your rights to photograph and sell anything 
visible from public property.

>I am a professional jewel thief.  Because I make my living in this 
>specific business, all rules concerning my taking of your jewelry
>from your store are null and void.  Besides, you charge too much for 
>the diamonds you sell.

There is absolutely no connection here.  Any photograph made from 
public property is legitimate and not stolen.

>Make sense?  Hell no.  So why does your particular line of business 
>affect your obeying the rules of a location you have entered?
>If you know the rules going in, you are morally required to follow 
>those rules, no matter how stupid, overpriced, or otherwise not
>in agreement with your beliefs or life experiences.

No. Many people put up notices that no photographs are allowed 
without having the slightest right or reason to do so.  If it is 
private property, you are right.  The property owner has the right to 
prohibit photography.  Otherwise, photography is a legal right.

>The good part about ethics is that it is usually between you and the 
>Man upstairs,

And I have no reservations about any photographs I have taken or 
sold.  The Man (or Woman) upstairs and I both know my motives. I'm 
not worried.  As far as lawyers go, I have everything in writing. ;-)

Tina