Mickey Trageser wrote:
>
> Giles,
> I'm in basic agreement with you, but I think some basic courtesy is in
> order. If I should photograph you as an incidental pedestrian in a
> photograph, and you are recognizable, I believe the following:
>
> 1. I should not have to ask your permission, if you are not the focus of my
> attention.
> 2. You should not expect that I am invading your 'personal space' by zooming
> in on you.
> 3. I should not make public the shot that clearly reveals a booger or lunch
> particles residing in your mustache. ;-)
> 4. The guy who is accompanied by someone he'd rather not have record of , is
> acting at his own risk, being in public anyway. But he is the one more
> likely to offer his objection in a more physical manner....
>
> Having a record of a moment frozen in time, to review repeatedly is not
> inherently offensive. But if an image of an individual portrays them badly
> due to a clumsy or unattractive expression, it's best not to make this image
> public as it could form a durable negative characterization of them. To do
> so, would put us in league with the National Enquirer and its ilk. I think
> common sense and respectful judgement should be the rule, and we should take
> heed at what the local customs are.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> Mickey
Ya hear that WeeGee! So knot it off and put that 4x5 away!
yours facetious in the back row,
Garry
--
Why is it that we come up with the most complicate ways of
"simplifying" our lives?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|