Back from vacation (just in time for another possible controversy) . . .
. . . I can't help it if I'm lucky
. . . and for whatever it's worth all this noise about getting
sued for "publishing" some stranger's picture in a public forum
is just that. Noise.
Listen. Newspapers (or magazines) used to be the most likely target for
these kinds of actions, mostly due to the nature of their work, I'd
suppose, and the rule of thumb there was always, well, don't sweat it,
basically. To present it in a slightly more graphic form, suppose your
entire body represents the number of similar lawsuits print media are
threatened with. It used to be the case (back then--I try these days not to
focus too hard on exactly when <g>) that if you took just one nail of one
of your little fingers you'd have (in terms of that mass compared to your
whole body) a rough representation of the number of suits actually brought
before the bar. If you took your other hand and used, say, the thumbnail of
that hand to describe just the tiniest portion of nail of the "sued" little
finger, that tiniest would reflect the number of suits actually won by
plaintiffs, and please keep in mind some of these end (ended) up with
virtually no appreciable monetary penalty ever being imposed upon the
defending journal.
Now maybe all that's changed. Lord knows more than a few of our judges
nowadays do not act sober, and the public was never too terribly swift, but
even so I doubt few individuals in this forum likely have enough meaningful
property to make this sort of as law suit a monetarily worthwhile venture,
even given a best-case scenario from the standpoint of the plaintiff, and a
jury would likely be much more sympathetic to an individual defendant with
whom they might well relate to more readily than they would a larger and
less human business entity like the New York Times. I don't know, but I'd
guess the chances of anyone around here being sued down to the floor for
the innocent publication of some no-name face for recreational purposes,
not financial remuneration, would be about the same as one of us being
informed that we'd just won the California lottery . . . on the same day
we'd stepped foot down on Mars. Or thereabouts.
And if you want to know, I would have thought that would be clear just with
normal application of common sense. But then again it could be I've just
lost touch.
Speaking of skins tones and exposure values in conjunction with gray
scales: do we speak to B&W photography here or color work? I'm confused as
both kinds of films seemed to be mentioned. You'll need to forgive my
confusion as I've just re-subscribed to this list and seem to have missed
some of the pertinent dialogue.
Tris
Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> > While I see your point, I'm not sure I completely agree with you.
> > It truly
> > is a sad world, though, isn't it.
>
> Sure is !
>
> Pretty soon you won't be able to publish any image which is recognisable as
> a person, something belonging to a person or any landscape. Every image
> will have to be purely abstract.
>
> What if I post a photo of our family dog on the internet, I get
divorced and
> my ex-wife "owns" the dog after the settlement. She'll probably sue me for
> damages !
>
I avoid taking pictures of people for just these reasons. The last time
I did street shooting was on New Year's eve 2000. Everytime there was a
single person as the subject, I asked permission. For groups and crowds,
I didn't bother. I didn't take any pictures of children by themselves. I
suppose this is why I mostly take pictures of buildings and cemetaries.
Most buildings don't need a release, and I don't think any cemetaries
require one. I suppose someone's estate could sue me, you never know.
Dirk Wright
|