Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 9/22/99 2:31:21 AM, schiemer@magicnet.net writes: << Photographer is insistent that his intentions are pure and altruistic; goes ahead and shoots his pictures, and the photo runs. Does the mother have grounds to sue the photographer and the paper because of the pain and suffering she endured (after the fact), and would the photographer and paper be liable for running the photo without release or expressed permission? As a matter of fact; many persons heard the mother tell the photographer she did not want a picture of her boy in the paper (it would come out in our hypothetical court). It's an interesting legal point, one that has some bearing on the issue. >> I'm not a lawyer (don't even play one on TV) but if I remember my communications law from journalism school, tough nuggies Mom. It happened in public view. Get over it! Bob McEowen