Re: [Leica] Off topic ? important court ruling

[Dave Munroe <dmunroe@vcd.hp.com>]

Dan Cardish wrote:

> But what right does someone have to sell newspapers or magazines at someone
> elses expense?

The "expense" did not occur until her friends laughed at
her.  The photo in the newspaper is a neutral statement.
The actions of her friends are the source of the girl's
complaint.


> Why should this girl have to justify the problems caused to
> her from unauthorized publication of her photograph

She has no foundation for seeking "justice".  Unless the photo
showed her picking her nose or doing something goofy, the
photo itself is neutral and shows no intent of malice.  If her
friends or classmates harassed her over it, chances are they
do that in the hallway or locker room, too.  She, or more likely
her parents, need to learn how to deal with the real world
and, especially, how kids tease each other.  Just what harm
did they cause her that warrants taking this to court, anyway?
How does it compare to the fat kid, the freckle-faced kid, or
the only black kid in school whose always getting harassed?
I'm not dismissing or condoning such behaviour (especially
since I've been the recipient of it), but I think taking things
like this to court is a poor attempt at learning to cope and
get along in the world.



> No one has the moral right to walk up to me in public,
> take my photograph, and use it to sell newspapers, without
> my permission.

Isn't that what a model release is for?  Perhaps one should
have been used in this case, but for a different reason.
Retaliation against the photographer or newspaper is still
the wrong target in this instance.  Also, in less clearly
defined instances, the very definition of "public" makes it
impractical to insist on things that are beyond your control.
What if someone was sitting at a baseball game eating a hot
dog and, in a photograph of the crowd, a close inspection of
the photo showed that person looking silly.  What recourse,
if any, should he have?

- -Dave