[Leica] Re: important court ruling [LONG]

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

At 04:41 PM 11-04-98 +0000, Danny Gonzalez
>[snip]
>As I said before, all of the papparazzo bashing (that some photographers
ironically revel=20
>in) can only invite ruinous law and incite the ignorant. Does anyone here
see the above=20
>ruling as a good thing?
>

Let me quote from an article about the ruling (from The Gazette, Saturday
April 11, 1998):

"An artist's right to publish his or her work cannot include the right to
infringe, without any justification, a fundamental right of the subject
whose image appears in the work," wrote Justices Claire L'Heureux-Dub=E9 and
Michel Bastarache.

"While the artist's right must be taken into consideration, so must the
rights of the photograph's subject."

"The public's right to information takes priority over any privacy rights
in certain circumstances:"

"A person who is engaged in a public activity or has acquired a certain
notoriety, such as artists and politicians and whose professional success
depends on public opinion."

"A previously unknown person is called into play in a high-profile role in
a matter in the public domain, such as an important trial, major economic
activity impacting on the use of public funds or an activity involving
public safety."

"If the person's own action, even unwittingly, accidentally places him or
her in the photograph in an incidental manner, such as a picture of a crowd
at a sporting event or demonstration."

"If the person appears in an incidental manner in a photograph of a public
place, such as a building."

"A person in a group photographed in a public place if he or she is not the
principle subject."

The article includes quote from the president of the Quebec federation of
professional journalists stating that "the ruling won't seriously affect
hard-news coverage, but newspapers could end up looking duller.  Instead of
running a photo of a kid eating an ice-cream cone in the park to tell
people warm weather is here, newspapers will prefer the shot of the
politician because they know where they stand with it."

The above ruling involved a photograph of a (17-year-old student) woman
sitting on the doorstep of a building and used to illustrate a story on
urban life.  Was she "in a high-profile role...blah, blah"?   Obviously
not.  Why didn't the freelance photographer get her permission?   Unless I
am in the middle of robbing a bank, what gives a newspaper the right to
publish my photograph without my permission?  I should be able to relax in
the park eating an ice-cream cone, and not have to worry about seeing my
picture in the paper the next day. =20

I DO see this as a good thing.  =20

Dan C.