errantember: (Default)
[personal profile] errantember
There's been a great debate over photography at the annual Critical Tits bike ride at Burning Man. For the uninitiated, hundreds if not thousands of women go topless, many get body painted, and then they ride across the playa in a huge solidarity parade. Naturally lots of men with cameras show up, despite the fact that BM has rules against taking recognizable pictures of people without their consent. Of course, not all the pictures are recognizable. My comments are on page 8, posted as errantember.

I need a photography icon...

Date: 2006-05-09 07:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stnuke.livejournal.com
Seems like there's a lot of potential debate over what "recognizable" is, and this hinges around what will stand up in a court. Unfortunately, in our current court system that means potentially "anything at all". Even foot pictures if you can put the right story around them, truth notwithstanding. Even pictures of shadows, or images that do not contain the individual at all if the argument can be made that they were there ("This body painting is clearly the work of the defendant, your honor."). Put the case in front of the right judge with an inadequate defense and anything goes.

It's truly a messy little world, and would be better if you could *truly* get outside of it. Better still, with a lever and a fulcrum.

Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 08:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] errantember.livejournal.com
Is there a caselaw history anywhere I can look at with convictions on things this vague?

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 09:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stnuke.livejournal.com
You've seen this, of course - it pops to mind. I don't think you're going to find an organized volume of this somewhere, but it's not *you* that are in danger but rather your subjects, and it's not a criminal court that is the scariest place to be, but a civil court where the standard of proof is not as strict, or even outside of the courtroom.

I think that as a photographer you're pretty clearly protected in the absence of some bar to capturing images in a non-public space. (Personally, I carry a copy of "the Photographer's Right" in my camera bag and refer to it when in doubt.)

We're going to play a game of "let's suppose" here using my body-painting example. Let's suppose that your employment situation were such that your employer could terminate you for "lascivious conduct" outside of work. You attend some festival, and paint some naked body and you sign them. Pictures are taken by another person, published on the web by a fourth. You are not in these pictures at all, yet I'll bet you could be terminated if your signature was recognizable.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, of course, but the above doesn't really refer to a court scenario at all, yet there are consequences. They might not stand up in court, but you'd have to sue your former employer to fix it and that is expensive and would pretty much destroy your chances of any future employment above retail level - law or no.

And if you want examples of criminal cases where this kind of thing would happen, I'd look into application of some of the more egregious drug enforcement legislation. Norml probably has some, for one thing.

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 09:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] errantember.livejournal.com
Yes, I'm familiar with several custody cases in which such pictures have been instrumental in getting people's children taken away from them, which is ridiculous I was referring more to photographers getting sued over pictures most people wouldn't recognize.

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 09:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stnuke.livejournal.com
I wasn't referring to photographers getting sued. As I say, the person behind the camera often is well-shielded from such silliness by dint of artistic expression, but all of the weirdness that can take place for the people in front of the lens or even people not primariy involved in the image itself gets very spooky. At an event such as this, you probably don't have to worry aobut indecency charges being brought unless the image makes its way to your local jurisdiction.

Midori, though, used to have a great speech about a friends of hers who was charged with indecency for waring chaps ...

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 09:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stnuke.livejournal.com
About.com says some things about atheism and child custody.

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 12:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] belin-ann.livejournal.com
I read this link and I'm not sure what it has to do with photography, but it's very disturbing. Being a mother in an alternative family it's not only nauseating, but frightening. Thank the Goddess that there's a real lack of conservatism in my family and it extends out pretty far.

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 12:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stnuke.livejournal.com
The reason I linked this was to illustrate how little evidence and what little reasoning is needed to make trouble for somebody in a court of law, depending on the judge and the skill of the attorneys. So if you're a photographer, and you create an image that could be used to argue somebody's religion...

I don't know about the civil liability of the photographer in such cases. I would ask a lawyer if I wanted to know for sure, but it's probably expensive to find out.

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 05:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] errantember.livejournal.com
The first woman lost her children because a picture of her at a Church of the Subgenius was posted online somewhere. It is very frightening. This subject was discussed quite a bit at the Poly 101 this past Sunday.

Re: Really?

Date: 2006-05-09 05:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] belin-ann.livejournal.com
I'm sorry I missed that discussion it's sounds like it was very relevant to our family.

Interesting topic

Date: 2006-05-10 10:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alphablonde.livejournal.com
As you know, we do movies -- some with lesbian content ( although pretty R-rated stuff) and we're hyper-careful about images giong out over the net. Of course we only shoot with a model's release ( even in crowd scenes that are spontaneous) for all these legal reasons. Admittedly that would be difficult bt not impossible to get at someplace like Burning Man.

My suggestion is not post anything to the net that you don't have a written release for -- the liability issue can really haunt you without it should it ever go to court.

Re: Interesting topic

Date: 2006-05-10 10:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] errantember.livejournal.com
Thanks for the info, it's good to get input from professionals. I'm fairly familiar with photographic law, and I understand the value of having releases in court. If I ever do for-profit work, I definitely intend to use them. For BM stuff, most of my pictures aren't of recognizable people, and when they are, they are people from whom I've gotten at least verbal permission. I'm willing to take the risk of posting those pictures in a non-commercial way with the understanding that I'm happy to take them down if anyone objects. I realize this exposes me to certain kinds of liability, but getting releases is genuinely too much work most of the time, especially because I tend to do candid photography. I'm simply not willing to except the limits that written permission implies, at least in public where First Amendment protections are pretty strong. Burning Man is a little different, so there I at least ask if I'm intending to post it. I also realize that using someone's likeness without their permission is illegal, so I don't do that, either. For me the main dividing line is recognizable pictures, especially when used for profit.
I'd actually like to take a model photography class so I could get more into the deliberate-setup instead of the spontaneous ambient-light style of photography, and obviously for that getting releases is fairly straightforward.

Profile

errantember: (Default)
errantember

December 2015

S M T W T F S
  12 345
6 789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 08:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios