The reason for bringing this up I guess has more to do with my disgust for media practices than the practices of a few lowly painters, however, our practices do cross a bit in purpose. I'm sure the [media] is arguing in some venue every day that they are dutifully serving the public good, and not just gratuitously selling soap. Bolshevik, I say.
Quote:
|
And all will probably be well until one appropriates the likeness of a non-public figure (or, without license, the rights in another, authorized depiction of that person) who is "newsworthy" only because it serves the publisher's commercial or self-interest that day, and who sees neither the honor nor the humor in the publicity or the laissez faire philosophy.
|
I really don't look to go around snatching peoples images without their permission. I always ask permission when I'm in those circumstances (except, as in your example of the old men in the park. But, one wonders if a class action suit couldn't be drawn up on behalf of all old men in all parks). I do bristle a bit at the notion of carrying around a legal document and whipping it out with ink pen. Sorta takes the smile off everyone's face. I always try and send the subject a copy of the image in an e-mail and then lock down their permission in that exchange of e-mails, thus having a written record.
I just can't understand why the media gets such a total pass for such egregious behavior such as I saw in New Orleans. The answer must be that the media can expose anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, and they alone are the arbiter of that individuals rights.
I don't know why I get these bees in my bonnet.