Brian, If you feel uncomfortable including people in your photos without their consent, fine. There is no ethical or legal reason not to. A person's sense of decency and taste should govern how they use candid shots of strangers - not just legalities. I find people in their environments more interesting than most things. I don't know why anyone would photograph spaces that people inhabit without the people! AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: bad law -- or is it?? > From: "Brian Lunergan" <brianlunergan@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, May 09, 2004 6:48 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Spoken like a true blue individualist. Strange though. It seems you've > contradicted yourself with your opening blast. If the expectation is > that you will respect other people's rights or follow public norms of > behaviour then you can't do anything you please. It is a simple truth > that when you throw a bunch of people together in a group (whether it's > a boy scout troup, a photography discussion forum, or a country) you > have to give up some portion of your individuality to gain the benefits > that grow from that group association. Which means that it still holds > that the only time you can do and say what you please is when you live > alone, miles from anybody and have absolutely nothing to do with > societal function. > > Well, it seems we're arguing metaphysics here rather than discussing > photography. I have no expectation that I will change the opinion of > the liberterians and rabid individualists in the crowd. Waste of time > trying. Personally, I take a collectivist view of things. If I'm on a > city street I'm there to do landscape work, not butt in on people > unless I'm a news photographer. People I concentrate on only by > permission. > > Bob Blakely <Bob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hogwash! You may do anything you please on public property so long as > you do > not infringe on anyone else's rights (or public norms of behavior - no > peeing on the bush in the public park), or on your own property or on > any > private property with permission of the owner. Being free means you > have to > allow others to be free (lest the things you like to do that really > harm no > one be banned also!) > > As to photos, take them anywhere you like of anyone you like where > there is > no reasonable expectation of privacy. Take them with anything you want. > The > idea that a law could be passed whose unintended consequence might be > to > require me to obtain the permission of all the folks in the background > of a > photo I took of my grandchildren is an abomination! Any law that > would, > though unintended, prevent me from photographing the aftermath of a > traffic > accident I get caught in, including the other driver who is moving > about > just fine before he sees an attorney to determine the extent of his > "injuries" is dangerous. If someone is actually harmed, as opposed to > being > on a control trip, they can get an attorney to sue for civil > compensation. > That's where this stuff belongs if it has merit - civil courts. > > Regards, > Bob... > > > --- > Brian Lunergan > Nepean, Ontario > Canada > > > --------------------------------- > Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
