This is a subject that raises my hackles; being trained as a photojournalist, censorship should be called censorship, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by srs5694
Don't take this personal, but your argument to alter the image is not acceptable under any circumstances and just the fact that anyone would even think it partially "reasonable" is frightening.
The act of living is a political statement regardless of how active you are in politics; your actions speak for themselves and your values. Also, there is no such thing as "impartial" photography; cameras don't float off and fire images randomly, at least mine don't!
Just as corporations CAN control access and use of their images on private property, the cannot do the same on public property UNLESS they can show that the intent was malicious, intentional and overt. Please note that the burden of proof of malicious behavior resides with the Corporation when images are made in a public area.
Ironically, Madison Avenue is the biggest proponent of and user of product association-to-image, so the users of advertising are hypocrites if they think they can dictate an "after the fact" association, don't you think?
Associations take place in the mind of the viewer that are out of the control of the photographer. It's really too bad if anyone doesn't like what actually happened, if the diaper company chose to advertise in the the public arena, then they take the lumps with the gold.
As much as US Corporations fight for and the government would LOVE to grant Corporations "free speech rights", they are and have never been individuals. It is extremely dangerous to begin to think that they either deserve or should be recognized as individuals UNLESS we can tax them as individuals and hold them responsible for their actions like individuals.
HA! What do you bet that passing a law that would make free speech for corporations possible IF they pay taxes like an individual and are legally liable like an individual would that stop them dead in their tracks? LOL