Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,480   Posts: 1,542,702   Online: 820
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72
  1. #21
    joeyk49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    Images
    26
    I think tim and blansky brought up good points.

    While I didn't read all of the articles pertaining to the case, I didn't see mention of the gentleman approaching the photographer at the time of the shot and raising an objection. Lights, camera, action, but no response from the subject. (If there is evidence to the contrary, please advise.) Only when he found out that his image was being sold AND fetching a good price, did he decide to take issue. I begin to sense that a desire for a piece of the profit may have had played a bit of a role in his civil action.

    I believe that public is PUBLIC and private is PRIVATE. If you go out in public, you have little expectation of privacy and can be spoken to, seranaded, looked at, laughed at, pitied and yes, photographed. If you remain in private, you have a very high expectation of privacy and a right to be left alone.

    The issue of celebrities and papparazzi runs parallel to this issue. The subject knows that when he/she goes out in public, there will be a photog trying to snag a shot. Celebs go to great lengths to avoid this, but the burden is on them. When a photographer violates the subject's right to privacy on private property, there should be hell to pay!

    The ethical issue of photographing someone that does not wish to be, even clearly objects, may touch this one, but is definitely separate.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    it seems to me that the "gentleman"'s "likeness" didn't have much to do with the selling of the photo. The artist has sold MANY others before this one - and it seems that he managed to do that WITHOUT using this guy's "likeness". Thus, the mug was interchangeable - and his complaint rendered impotent. easy.
    And yet this particular mug sold for incredible amounts of money, and offended the subject. If the mug is interchangeable, why not photograph only those that let you do it, as opposed to hiding from the subjects and firing the camera as they walk by?

  3. #23
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre R. de Avillez

    The napalm girl was a case of journalism, wasn't it?

    What does a "case of journalism" mean?

    What higher calling is journalism that any other form of legal photography.

    As a photographer I have a right to record to human condition. I have no obligation to respect your feelings. You are discussing manners, not rights.

    The arts are not about manners.



    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre R. de Avillez
    Migrant mother was probably taken with consent. It was not the only photo taken (there were 3 or 4), which suggests that the subject KNEW what was going on and let it go on.
    Migrant Mother was a propaganda photograph. Government photographer turns up (probably with big car and maybe driver, possiblly with other officials or not - it's a while since i read the details) to photograph a displaced person in what I think was a resettlement camp. Yes she knew what was going on - did she have a choice? Could she have said no? Did she really give consent?

    I still happen to think it is a great photograph though - because in the end all that other stuff really doesn't matter that much. Good manners rarely makes good art.

    As for press photography - what is it that somehow makes that okay without permission - in often the worst moment of someones life?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    Images
    58
    Michael,

    What I mean by photojournalism is photography more concerned with events than specific people. You're right in questioning why one is higher legally than another, but recall that I'm not questioning the legal side of this, but the ethical (what you call manners). I'm not questioning what one should do to guarantee conformity to the law, but what one ought to do in order to act in the best way possible. That, and the questioning of what the goal is, constitues ethics, and since this is in the ethics forum I believe that I'm not out of bounds.

    Tim, I'm not familiar with the details, and if this is how it went on it should be frowned upon as well.

    I go back to an earlier point: If you are so concerned with the human condition, shouldn't you respect the human beings you photograph?

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,092
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    What does a "case of journalism" mean?

    What higher calling is journalism that any other form of legal photography.

    As a photographer I have a right to record to human condition. I have no obligation to respect your feelings. You are discussing manners, not rights.

    The arts are not about manners.



    Michael
    A case of journalism as in "wasn't intended for display in a gallery"
    I don't understand how you cna't see the difference between that and a set up shot. ie there were lights set up on scaffolding for the head shots.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre R. de Avillez

    Migrant mother was probably taken with consent...
    No, it is not. When mother with child in hands runs away from bombing or murderes or rapists who attack her, she doesn't think about giving consent she run for life. And photographer doesn't ask her for consent. IF you ever was in that situation you would know (I mean was there not waching it on TV).

    I know (because I was present in those situations) that during war in my country photographers were in shelters near streets waiting for people walking those streets to be shot by snipers. When people were shot those photographers made photos (another question is what to think of a man who see another man who dying in front of him and doesn't try to help...). They publish photographs in magazines, made exhibitions, etc... one word earn money. Nobody asked consent of those shot people can those photographs be published.

    Now: Because in one state live people with different cultural, religious, moreal, etc... backgrounds and opinions, there is only one thing which can be done. That is to make a law which will be valid for all those people and everyone should respect it. On the other hand all those people must realize that they make compromise and accepting that law they reject some of theire moral, religious, etc... rights. Concequently, if in one state by law people can be photographed on street, and theire likeness can be published and at the end bring money to photographer, that law is only thing which should be looked at. Because if you give one individual or group to act following theire moral, religious, etc... rights, you must give same right to every other person or group. And as we all have more or less different thinkings about different issues, we will never agree. So, our life would become impossibile.

    That is, however this sounds wrong, in case of photograph of that man, law is only thing which should be looking at. That man, going to public, accept that he make compromise with his rights to privacy, and he must be aware of that fact.

  8. #28
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre R. de Avillez





    I go back to an earlier point: If you are so concerned with the human condition, shouldn't you respect the human beings you photograph?
    The girl escaping napalm probably couldn't be considered respecting the girl in question but the photograph did have perhaps a "higher" purpose in maybe helping stop the war.

    Does photographing the human condition need to respect the person it covers?

    You obviously believe it does. I'm not so sure.

    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer
    A case of journalism as in "wasn't intended for display in a gallery"
    I don't understand how you cna't see the difference between that and a set up shot. ie there were lights set up on scaffolding for the head shots.
    So it was instead taken for far wider display and dissemination in a for profit commercial enterprise i.e. a newspaper or magazine

  10. #30
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by John Koehrer
    A case of journalism as in "wasn't intended for display in a gallery"
    I don't understand how you cna't see the difference between that and a set up shot. ie there were lights set up on scaffolding for the head shots.
    So your judgement relies on "intent".

    The Afghanistan girls picture is now a gallery picture. Not the intent.

    Does the intent of the photographer really make a difference as long as the picture was legally taken?


    MIchael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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