Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] WAS: [w/Leica!] LEGAL STUFF
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 07:33:43 -0700

<<<<<At 06:43 PM 8/31/99 -0400, you wrote:
>RULE 2.170 Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing Media and Still
>Photography Coverage of Judicial Proceedings.>>>>>>>

Eric Welch responded:
>That must have been old. I heard Florida dropped the M Leica quiet rule.
>Maybe they just don't enforce it. It's tough to shoot in court with the
>longest lens being 135mm. Or maybe we get around the rule by comparing our
>SLRs to the Visoflex? :-)>>>>>>>>>

Hi Eric,

Nice to see you responding once again.

Regarding the above topic..."in court photography" I think we in Canada
have the right attitude about cameras in the court room. "they're not
allowed, TV or otherwise."

I believe that should be the way, certainly if you watched all the "play
acting, posturing" that took place during the OJ case and others on
American TV. Besides who cares what the people look like in a court room
just sitting there doing whatever it is they're doing, picking their nose
or their ass, It's really non-relevent subject material, OJ or otherwise.

The gutter press of course love this stuff, sells more papers, makes more
profits and that's the bottom line subject of court room image making, not
whether great photographs are taken.

I know a bunch of you US lads are going to come back with freedom of the
press, the amendments etc. but that just doesn't wash! After all who really
cares, rarely has there been smashing great images taken.

Leica or no Leica!

ted

Ted Grant
This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant