As a former journalist one thing that concerns me about these issues is the
definition of news, spot news, or newsworthy event. These aren't defined in
the Constitution, under which protection the news media operate.
I have always considered myself a journalist, not a reporter, because
chronicling one's times does not always include the immediate or timely
reporting of events documented. Perhaps this is because I've grown to
appreciate the role of the historian in accurately documenting the times.
But such chronicles are no less valid and should enjoy the same protection
under law.
Unfortunately this issue is too far off-topic for the forum, I suppose, so I
guess I'll just say, take your camera, take your photos and take your
chances. In my book to do less in time of crisis could constitute
negligence.
Lex
===
From: "Peter A. Klein" <pklein@xxxxxxxxxx>
[Original msg edited by Lex] Years ago I read a book called "Legal Aspects
of Photography." At least
that's what the cover says. The title page says "Legal Problems in
Photography." I still have it--the author is Robert Veit Sherwin, and it's
an Amphoto book, copyright 1957, 6th printing, July 1969.
The aspect that concerns me here is "invasion of privacy."
This doesn't apply to a news photo, where the person is part of a
newsworthy event. But it can apply *later*, if an old spot-news photo is
used again after the event.
What this boils down is that except for journalists covering a newsworthy
event, a photographer may not use a picture of a person for any commercial
purpose without the subject's consent.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|