You may be right. It was a long time ago and some of the seminars
were pretty boring. But I think one germane issue was the fact this
fellow was not a public figure. With public figures, malice really
comes into play. Private figures singled out as illustrations on the
covers of major daily newspaper magazines have a smidge more
entitlement to privacy.
I really should stay planted on my arse here and look up the case,
but somehow I think I probably won't, mostly because I'm fairly sure
I'm fairly safe doing what I'm doing. Not that I may not see an
occasional fist come flying my way. But it's been my experience that
most of the folks I've photographed have been delighted that someone
thought what they had or what they were doing was interesting enough
for a picture. It's like the cloak of anonymity has been lifted, even
if for a moment. (There's some pretty serious anthropology buried in
there somewhere, but I'm not up to it tonight.)
--Bob
On Nov 10, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> I'd be surprised if the case succeeded on that point - given that it
> was fair point and not derogatory in any sense nor was there malice
> in the use.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|