>There is a larger issue that I hope the courts would take into
consideration: that documentation of social life is a public good that
outweighs the discomfort that might be felt by some subjects (and by
many photographers for that matter).
>The issue especially comes to a
head with paparazzi, but I'd probably especially defend them, as long as
they act within reason.
>It would be better if we didn't live in a
culture where celebrity was as important as it is, but as long as we do it
is essential that celebrities not have total control of their image, as many
would like to be.
Good points, John. One also has to ask what the point of photography is if
you can't show it to people, i.e. publish it. If you don't share it and say,
"Hey, wow, look what I saw!" then you might as well just stand at an
intersection wearing crooked smile, trying not to laugh. But then again,
showing *everything* you see or "could see" can be like telling everything
you know--not discrete, not very responsible.
The reason "paparazzi" are not respected is because they *don't* act within
reason, and that they compromise (and occasionally cost) the lives of other
people, for money. I'm as much or more for the rights of artists as anyone,
because I are one--but an artist has as much responsibility to be fair,
honest, and decent as normal people do. Maybe even more, so as not to be
regarded as a propagandist or a hack.
There's a balance somewhere, but it's up to us and our peers to find it. The
Law is Blind--and not overly bright, for that matter. :-)
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com