Speaking of weird ethics, who decides whose ethics are weird?
Last edited:
I cant see anything ethically wrong with taking photos of people in public (the laws take care of what you shouldn't do). The course of homelessness is unrelated and if anything would benefit by more exposure.
I do think people who demonize people with their own weird ethics to be a huge problem and I will challenge anyone who does so.....and I do.
Speaking of own weird ethics, who decides weirdness?
I cant see anything ethically wrong with taking photos of people in public (the laws take care of what you shouldn't do).
People in Austin.
No but photographing the poor is morally insensitive unless you are taking the photos with the intention to somehow help raise awareness of their situation. The are out in the open and don’t necessarily have the privacy afforded to those who are better off. Taking their pictures like some sort of deviant or animal on display is offensive.
Nope. The laws take care of what you can't do.
Your personal ethics take care of what you shouldn't do.
Whether you can or cannot kill someone is a legal matter; whether you should or shouldn't kill that person is an ethical matter.
Since you thought it morally wrong, you have no (moral) dilemma.
Your argument is being alarmist, one extreme to another.
Photographing what you see is proof of what is happening. Governments and some people would like to hide it.
When my wife visited Paris she was shocked at the level of begging, she was very active on Instagram and was friends with a number of people who lived in Paris, but they only take nice photos of their city.
You may not know that their is a huge amount of homelessness in Australia, but there is and it's very evident.
Not Photographing it is hiding the truth.
rmission. Treatises have been written on this, and I am not equipped to try to summarize it all in a few sentences here.
In the US, if you sell a photograph -- put it "in commerce," in legalese -- the circumstances matter. A lot. Selling a photograph taken in a public place of another for use in a Chanel ad, probably requires consent. Selling a photograph at Gagosian as a work of art, probably not.
Interesting topic. Taking photos of the down and out. Has anyone factored in "selfies" yet?
Your argument is being alarmist, one extreme to another.
Photographing what you see is proof of what is happening. Governments and some people would like to hide it.
When my wife visited Paris she was shocked at the level of begging, she was very active on Instagram and was friends with a number of people who lived in Paris, but they only take nice photos of their city.
You may not know that their is a huge amount of homelessness in Australia, but there is and it's very evident.
Not Photographing it is hiding the truth.
In your example, the picture was sold for commercial purposes and the women never got paid or signed a consent agreement. Woold tn have been a problem if posted on social media in France?
I'm curious about what the definition of carrier is?
Seems like the very legitimate, and very compassionate, concern towards the beggar—"should I do it?"—has been obliterated in favor of the concern towards the photographer—"Am I allowed to do it?"
As a US lawyer who practiced extensively in trademark law, and dabbled in privacy issues, I will say that the law is a good deal more nuanced, and confused, than this. People (not just celebrities) have a right to their likeness and it is infringed when their likeness is used without their permission. Treatises have been written on this, and I am not equipped to try to summarize it all in a few sentences here.
In the US, if you sell a photograph -- put it "in commerce," in legalese -- the circumstances matter. A lot. Selling a photograph taken in a public place of another for use in a Chanel ad, probably requires consent. Selling a photograph at Gagosian as a work of art, probably not.
This is an evolving area of the law -- more so on the privacy side, than on the trademark side. And the rules change not only from nation to nation, but also (at least as to the laws of privacy) from state to state in the US. YMMV.
I think that's the problem with copyright laws that they just aren't black and white. That might be why the Supreme Court seems to have fallen back on their commercial aspect to guide them. Money trading hands is pretty clear as opposed to what's transformative or not, which is more the eye of the beholder type of opinion. What's transformative to one critic might be just plagiarism to another. MAybe Congress should revisit the law.Just as an example, in New York a photographer was found not to have invaded his neighbor's statutory privacy interests under New York law, when he photographed them through their window and presented the photographs as art. See Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D. 3d 150 (1st Dept. 2015), which may be read here:
Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D.3d 150 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D.3d 150, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
The court held that a work of art is protected speech, and that profiting by its sale does not constitute a violation of the plaintiff's privacy interests.
At least, that was true in New York. In 2015. The usual disclaimers apply.
I think that's the problem with copyright laws that they just aren't black and white. That might be why the Supreme Court seems to have fallen back on their commercial aspect to guide them.
Copyright is solely about commercial interests - it is a legal concept intended to create and protect a monetary interest.
No more, and no less.
To state the obvious: The creator's commercial interests, not the subject's. Ages ago, I photographed a model who insisted that she sign a release before the shoot to protect her rights. It was a general release. I tried to explain to her that a release protects the photographer, not the model. She was adamant none the less.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?