Rowling privacy victory to hit photographers

[Roger Hicks]

Celebrity, however one may wish the term be used, is not something one takes unto oneself by voluntary action, nor can one refuse its loving embrace. Celebrity is bestowed.

Dear Bill,

I apologize for the 'snottiness' of the earlier post, but would say in my defence (as we both know well) that trying to appear clever is hard to resist. Actually being clever is more demanding (again as we both know well).

I will however dispute the nature of consent to celebrity (and indeed notoriety). An adult can (or is presumed to be able to) judge the consequences of his or her actions, and is therefore able to choose celebrity/notoriety or not. If celebrity or notoriety is then bestowed, he or she can thereafter control access of the press to some extent. A child cannot.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

I apologize for the 'snottiness' of the earlier post, but would say in my defence (as we both know well) that trying to appear clever is hard to resist. Actually being clever is more demanding (again as we both know well).

Thank you for that. I agree with you in this as well.

I will however dispute the nature of consent to celebrity (and indeed notoriety). An adult can (or is presumed to be able to) judge the consequences of his or her actions, and is therefore able to choose celebrity/notoriety or not. If celebrity or notoriety is then bestowed, he or she can thereafter control access of the press to some extent. A child cannot.

That would be the role of a parent. Parents stand to protect their children, not the government, from the legal gathering and reporting of news.

I would once again dare to argue that if JK Rowling did not want a photograph of her child published, she should not have appeared in public with the child. Anyone who witnessed the appearance knows who the child is, certainly. The news simply acted as a multiplier to the number of witnesses.

Access was granted when she hove into public view.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That would be the role of a parent. Parents stand to protect their children, not the government, from the legal gathering and reporting of news.

Dear Bill,

Another slippery slope argument where you stake your position close to absolutism.

Parents do not always behave in ways that will benefit their children; the state acts as a backup, here as alsewhere.

I am not inclined to argue this one strongly. Both views -- yours and mine -- are defensible; and our opinions differ on matters of degree, not fact.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[bmattock]

I can't see what all the fuss is about here.

I'm not sure there is a 'fuss'. I've posted a news story, and I feel that it does represent a concern for all photographers, but I have not (hopefully) made a 'fuss' over it.

"The court ruled that a child has a 'reasonable expectation that he or she will not be targeted in order to obtain photographs in a public place for publication, which the person who took the photographs knew would be objected to on behalf of the child".

Tis true, and I disagree with the conclusion. I don't think a child has any such expectation. In the US, certainly not. I'm sorry to hear it is now the case in the UK.

Don't photograph minors, for publication, if you think that the parents would object.
That's called common courtesy.

One should refrain from breaking wind in church. Shall we make it a law now? The point being that 'common courtesy' is just that - voluntary behavior. If restrained by law, it is no longer voluntary, and thus no longer 'courtesy'.

I have read this argument here before. Whilst I agree with being courteous, I won't voluntarily give up my rights to avoid giving offense to others in many cases, and to demand that I do so, backed by force of law, is simply unacceptable.

"However, the court stressed that the 'focus should not be on the taking of the photograph in the street but in its publication' and rejected the view that the claimant has a legal 'image right".

No rights taken away here, no "thin end of the wedge".

The court held that there was no legal right to publication. This was not the case before the ruling. Thus, the thin edge. A right - or at least a practice that had previously been considered legal - is no more.

What newspapers could once do - they no longer can.

If that is not a reduction in rights, I do not know what is.

But I fully understand why we find ourselves on different sides of this issue.

As I stated previously, in time, you will regret the gleeful giving away of our rights as photographers - even the demand that we be restricted to avoid being discourteous to others. There is an end to all this, and none of us will like it when it comes. I'll at least have raised the issue for discussion. Please remember that when you're required to have your camera registered as a weapon might be, and a license granted to take photographs - or revoked - at a gendarme's discretion, with your photographs subject to approval and tax by the local magistrate.

Am I exaggerating? Today - yes, today - in New York City, there is a public debate regarding the city's proposal that wedding photographers must be licensed, pass a test, pay a $5,000 fee to the city, and fill out lengthy questionnaires before they are allowed to practice their trade in NYC.

http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int 0633-2007.htm

And if you think that's reasonable - wait until the $5,000 fee is on you for taking shots of flowers at the local park.

That's where we are headed. But so many of you don't choose to see it. I am very downhearted.

 

[Matt White]

What we're talking here is paparazzi and gutter press, REAL NEWSpapers have nothing to fear.

"First they came for the communists...."

 

[Paul T.]

Am I exaggerating? Today - yes, today - in New York City, there is a public debate regarding the city's proposal that wedding photographers must be licensed, ppay a $5,000 fee to the city, and fill out lengthy questionnaires before they are allowed to practice their trade.

Well, yes, you ARE exaggerating. The fee is, I think, around $125. THe $5,000 is a bond, against non-delivery of photos that have been paid for etc. Ludicrous, yes, but again not as draconian as you describe.

UK newspapers did not previoulsy have a right to photograph identified celebrities' children; it has been forbidden by the Press Commission, their trade organisation, for many years. SO, again, this is NOT a serious issue for photographers. Saying it represents a dangerous precedent, a silppery slope, a thin end of the wedge, is like saying that banning ownership of anti-aircraft missiles infringes your right to bear arms.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'd just like to settle the matter here by saying that Bill is right.

Thanks much.

 

[bmattock]

" What newspapers could once do - they no longer can."

What we're talking here is paparazzi and gutter press, REAL NEWSpapers have nothing to fear.

At the risk of once again seeming to be on the side of the much-hated paparazzi, they serve two purposes that I can discern.

First, and most importantly, they fill the demand that the public has for photos of these sorts. As always, we blame the purveyors of filth for the demand our societies have for filth. Supply does not exist in a vacuum. People want this sort of thing, or there would be no paparazzi. Like lawyers - if people would quit suing the bejabbers our of each other, maybe we wouldn't hate them so much.

Second, like it or not, it is the edges that define the boundaries. Existing in the middle, one cannot see either side. It is the extremes that define what rights are and what they are not. This is a necessary role in a free society. The paparazzi's role in society in this capacity is no different than that of pornographers, or devoutly religious, or militant demonstrators for or against this or that. Larry Flynt, reviled though he was, helped in a very concise way to define the boundaries of free speech in the USA - and not by being meek.

The paparazzi are not only producing services that the public desires, they perform a secondary and extremely useful function in defining the edges of legal photographic behaviour.

 

[bmattock]

Well, yes, you ARE exaggerating. The fee is, I think, around $125. THe $5,000 is a bond, against non-delivery of photos that have been paid for etc. Ludicrous, yes, but again not as draconian as you describe.

I stand corrected - I conflated the required $5,000 'bond' with the $125 'fee'. Nevertheless, that's $5,125 out of a photographer's pocket before he can shoot a wedding in the city of New York, right? That a good thing?

UK newspapers did not previoulsy have a right to photograph identified celebrities' children; it has been forbidden by the Press Commission, their trade organisation, for many years.

That has not the force of law. That is agreed-upon 'polite behavior' as you seem to wish to see codified as law.

SO, again, this is NOT a serious issue for photographers. Saying it represents a dangerous precedent, a silppery slope, a thin end of the wedge, is like saying that banning ownership of anti-aircraft missiles infringes your right to bear arms.

Rights are not generally infringed upon all at once in a functioning society, they are taken little by little. Do you disagree?

And rights, once taken, are almost never returned voluntarily. I can think of only a few cases in the US where that has ever been the case.

Freedoms, once surrendered, are seldom regained without violence.

That is, after all, the very definition of a slippery slope.

We can call it something else, since that seems to fash you.

I have been accused several times in this thread of being an 'absolutist'. I've been thinking about it, and perhaps that is true. I hope that there is a place in society for an absolutist, which I do indeed see as preferable to one who has no strong opinions about anything.

 

[Al Patterson]

I have been accused several times in this thread of being an 'absolutist'. I've been thinking about it, and perhaps that is true. I hope that there is a place in society for an absolutist, which I do indeed see as preferable to one who has no strong opinions about anything.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

 

[Al Patterson]

Celebrities have been suing the asses off the paparazzi for decades, and winning. This is not affecting the rights of honest street photographers.

I've told you what I'm doing to protect the rights of street photogs. What are you doing apart from playing the Gadfly?

In your public profile you state you are a "Professional Gadfly".
For those who don't know, here what wiki says:
"Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant."

You are hardly "stimulating innovation", but I do find you an "irritant".

This is quite interesting. I find some of those arguing with Bill to be the irritants. From my point of view, Bill "gets it", and the others do not.

Of course, YMMV...

 

[David Murphy]

I get the impression that Ms. Rowling is quite a prima donna who uses her $$ to sue and bully anyone who displeases her. I've never read her books, but I tried to watch one of her movies based on her first book and found it insufferable -- I can't understand the adoration for her in the media.

 

[Al Patterson]

Tell me what I don't get Al, I'm all ears.

I wan't exactly referring to you, but I think Bill explained the various issues much better than i can. If we allow the rights of those on the edges of our profession or hobby to be infringed, ours may follow shortly thereafter. Since I'm over 50, maybe I should just let it go and hope I'm dead before things turn to sh*t...

And most of the paprazzi who have been sued were the ones that deserved it.

It's one thing to stand outside a club to catch Paris Hilton or some famous person, it's another to chase them at high speeds until they crash. A case involving Lindsey Lohan comes to mind, not to mention Princess Diana.

 

[bmattock]

Celebrities have been suing the asses off the paparazzi for decades, and winning. This is not affecting the rights of honest street photographers.

I am willing to believe you, but I do not know of any such lawsuits. Indeed, I know of many lawsuits paparazzi have filed against celebrities when they have been assaulted, had their equipment stolen and/or damaged, etc. These seem to generally result in a settlement for a 'confidential amount'.

Could you give me the names of one or two notable lawsuits where paparazzi were sued by celebrities and lost?

I've told you what I'm doing to protect the rights of street photogs. What are you doing apart from playing the Gadfly?

You say that as though playing the gadfly was not enough. I also agitate, posture, belittle, dazzle, and once I even defenestrated.

Oh, I also engage in civil disobedience on occasion. Seems more direct and more fun that writing letters to stuffed shirts and wonks.

In your public profile you state you are a "Professional Gadfly".
For those who don't know, here what wiki says:
"Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant."

You are hardly "stimulating innovation", but I do find you an "irritant".

Then my work here is nearly complete. In such ways, pearls are made.

 

[bmattock]

It's one thing to stand outside a club to catch Paris Hilton or some famous person, it's another to chase them at high speeds until they crash. A case involving Lindsey Lohan comes to mind, not to mention Princess Diana.

In each of those cases, it was not the photography that got them into trouble, but their criminal behavior. Being a photographer does not give one license to break the law.

It only gives one license to engage in lawful behaviour - even that behaviour which decent people like our friends here find disrespectful of others.

 

[yanidel]

Zidane il a baisé, Zidane il a baisé, Zidane il a baiséééééé (singing).

(too bad most of you won´t get the joke)

 

[BillP]

Right.

There are two types of law in the UK, as in many other countries. Torts and malfeasances, or in other words, civil and criminal law. This case was brought under the rules of tort. Rowling has - in this case successfully - used the law of the land to protect her child - which is unable to protect itself - from unreasonable intrusion.

Please note the word "unreasonable". Again, in UK law, there is the "concept of reasonableness". Since the late 19th Century and Lord Bowen, this has been illustrated by the example of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" - in other words, an ordinary chap.

What a judge does in cases such as this is rules what he thinks would be deemed to be reasonable by our man on the bus. (There is a whole separate argument as to whether a highly paid and privilaged legal expert in the latter part of their life is truly representative of the views of such hoi polloi but that is not for this thread.) That is what the judge has done.

This truly is a non-issue and much of the spiralling and cyclic debate on this thread is simply ill-informed. Like Pitxu I am strongly in favour of the protection of photographers' rights, and am actively involved in the campaign to do so, but this is a distraction from the main issues.

Again, I urge any UK resident who feels strongly about this to write to your MP and get them to support the Early Day Motion initiated by Austin Mitchell, or in other words, a little less conversation, a little more action.

Finally, I freely confess as a non-US citizen what I know about US law has been gleaned from old episodes of LA Law, Law and Order and Perry Mason, etc, typically watched with half a brain while doing something else.

For that reason I wouldn't presume to equate my training in and experience of UK law into sweeping generalisations about the laws of the US, or indeed any other nation.

Regards,

Bill

 

[itf]

It seems a lot of people agree that children shouldn't be appearing in any editorial without some sort of parental consent? And it seems to be the UK's new stance too. It kind of surprises and worries me that people feel this way; children are part of what is going on in the world. \

Should I have not taken this photo and should I also not be considering putting it in a larger series about Thailand a year after the coupe, during the constitutional referendum and subsequent election? Even though it fits well, and does apply (in my opinion). I hesitate to post it now, and will probably take it down again soon...

 

[Roger Hicks]

It seems a lot of people agree that children shouldn't be appearing in any editorial without some sort of parental consent?

Well, I certainly don't agree with that, but (like the judge) I think identification is the issue. If I take a picture of Mehitabel Bloggs, aged 8, and publish it without permission as Mehitabel Bloggs, aged 8, of 123 Surrey Gardens, that's a bit different from a generic picture of a little girl watching a dragon dance in Ramsgate at the Chinese New Year.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Paul T.]

It seems a lot of people agree that children shouldn't be appearing in any editorial without some sort of parental consent? And it seems to be the UK's new stance too.
Should I have not taken this photo and should I also not be considering putting it in a larger series about Thailand?

Oh no! We've fallen down Bill's slippery slope! I can guarantee you would be OK with this photo, morally and legally, in the UK at least, as long as you don't caption it "millionaire food mogul takes his son Bernie for a walk outside their luxurious home, 49 Worachek, Bangkok"

I applaud Bill's zeal in upholding photographers' rights, btw, but I think his zeal is misdirected in this instance. The weather was turning sunny in Detroit when I left last Friday, hope your spring's holding up as well as ours is...