Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,907   Posts: 1,584,612   Online: 925
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    (snip) What I am saying is that unintentional damage to uninvolved third parties is possible whenever photos (or video footage or audio recordings) of newsworthy events are distributed. The possibility of such damage is real and should be acknowledged -- it's just not justification for censorship, IMHO. Perhaps a reasonable middle ground would be to blur out the details on the billboard, but I'd be reluctant to require such actions. Consider if, instead of a diaper ad, the billboard had an ad for the NRA. Publishing such a photo then becomes, at least potentially, political speech. Whether or not you agree with the statement in this hypothetical photo, it'd be a powerful image and very important, from a freedom of speech perspective.
    This is a subject that raises my hackles; being trained as a photojournalist, censorship should be called censorship, period.

    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

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    The possibility of such damage is real and should be acknowledged -- it's just not justification for censorship, IMHO. Perhaps a reasonable middle ground would be to blur out the details on the billboard, but I'd be reluctant to require such actions.
    This is a subject that raises my hackles; being trained as a photojournalist, censorship should be called censorship, period.
    As I did; note the word "censorship" the the above quote.

    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.
    Please re-read what I wrote, and specifically the part that reads "I'd be reluctant to require such actions."

    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.
    IANAL, but my understanding is that this is already the case. Corporations do enjoy free-speech rights and most other rights granted to individuals and they are taxed, although the details of how they're taxed are different than they are for individuals. They're also held responsible for their actions, although of course you can't lock a corporation in jail, so punishment for law-breaking is mostly in the form of fines.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino
    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. LOL
    Only if you assume that the corporation's goal is to win the suit.

    It's more realistic to assume their goal is merely to not get the suit thrown out of court, and thus ruin your life with extended litigation they can afford and you can't, and intimidate anyone else considering similar actions. They merely have to prove it's vaguely possible they're right to not get thrown out.

    Worse, new statute means no case law pertaining to the new statute. A meritless suit that might've gotten tossed quickly in the past may now legitimately make it to trial and several appeals, since all the potential screwball interpretations of the new law have yet to be definitively shot down.

  4. #14
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    Here's a link for the actual text of the bill in PDF form.

    While there are exclusions for comparison advertising, criticism/parody, and "all forms of news reporting and news commentary", there is not an exclusion for coincidental inclusion of the trademark in an image of an event, person or object. So, I guess the concern to us centers around what constitutes criticism/parody and how "news reporting" is defined with respect to our area of interest. Regardless, it would seem that the deep-pocketed trademark owner is likely to win - along with the trial lawyers, of course.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    As I did; note the word "censorship" the the above quote.
    Please re-read what I wrote, and specifically the part that reads "I'd be reluctant to require such actions.".
    I saw it. You also said, "relucatant"; a nuance that implies it might be acceptable to impose under certain circumstances. I do not agree at all with that sentiment.

    I also asked that you not take it personal; debate can occur without offense.

    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    IANAL, but my understanding is that this is already the case. Corporations do enjoy free-speech rights and most other rights granted to individuals and they are taxed, although the details of how they're taxed are different than they are for individuals. They're also held responsible for their actions, although of course you can't lock a corporation in jail, so punishment for law-breaking is mostly in the form of fines.
    I am unaware of Supreme Court decisions upholding the free-speech rights of a corporation, but would like the references to read-up on if true.

    IMHO, If it is true, it certainly needs to be overturned. I've never seen a factory or a packing plant vote, particpate in civic events or canvas for a political candidate, but I HAVE seen people who work for that corporation do it.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin