Diana paparazzi photog trial

JamesJWeg

I don't really know what to think of this.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/22/diana.france.ap/index.html

What is your take on the finding? just how did they invade his privacy? Since when did taking a photo of someone walking out of a hotel become invasion of privacy, and as for the crash shots, isn't that a news item?



If this is a repost sorry, I did a search but didn't find anything.

James.

wxwax

I dunno how French law is written. That's the issue here.

Shay Stephens

I think it has less to do with taking a photo than it does hunting the victims like dogs, chasing them, goading the crash, taking the juicy photos of the aftermath...basically being inhuman animals on the hunt.

I think this type of stalking and harasment should be stopped and they should have been fined more than a token. Their actions were in whole or in part responsible for the crash and deaths. The privacy issue is probably just a toe hold to get some kind of punishment metted out on them.

JamesJWeg wrote:

I don't really know what to think of this.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/22/diana.france.ap/index.html

What is your take on the finding? just how did they invade his privacy? Since when did taking a photo of someone walking out of a hotel become invasion of privacy, and as for the crash shots, isn't that a news item?



If this is a repost sorry, I did a search but didn't find anything.

James.

3rdPlanetPhotography

bahhhahahaha
I hope they spend their 1 Euro very carefully

rahmonster

Shay Stephens wrote:

I think it has less to do with taking a photo than it does hunting the victims like dogs, chasing them, goading the crash, taking the juicy photos of the aftermath...basically being inhuman animals on the hunt.

I think this type of stalking and harasment should be stopped and they should have been fined more than a token. Their actions were in whole or in part responsible for the crash and deaths. The privacy issue is probably just a toe hold to get some kind of punishment metted out on them.

Sorry but what kind of a sick puppy are you when you stop and photograph a horrific car crash instead of trying to help. She was dying and they were snap snapping away. That really made me mad.

Thusie

rahmonster wrote:

Sorry but what kind of a sick puppy are you when you stop and photograph a horrific car crash instead of trying to help. She was dying and they were snap snapping away. That really made me mad.

With you on that and I also agree with what Shay said.

JamesJWeg

Yes, I am with you on how low those photogs went, however I have concerns about precedent cases like this might set.

James.

Shay Stephens

I don't think you have to worry about a case like this. It's clearly about harassment. The case that was just won by a photog who took a street photo of a guy and sold prints for big bucks is the bigger case.

The judge ruled that it was not invasion of privacy and that he didn't have to pay the man he photographed since the work was deemed art and not commerce (i.e. advertising/selling a product).

So yay for us :-)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_ORTHODOX_JEWS_PHOTO_BAOL-?SITE=NYNYD&SECTION=MIDEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

JamesJWeg wrote:

Yes, I am with you on how low those photogs went, however I have concerns about precedent cases like this might set.

James.

wxwax

Good link, thanks Shay.

JamesJWeg

Shay Stephens wrote:

I don't think you have to worry about a case like this. It's clearly about harassment. The case that was just won by a photog who took a street photo of a guy and sold prints for big bucks is the bigger case.

The judge ruled that it was not invasion of privacy and that he didn't have to pay the man he photographed since the work was deemed art and not commerce (i.e. advertising/selling a product).

So yay for us :-)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_ORTHODOX_JEWS_PHOTO_BAOL-?SITE=NYNYD&SECTION=MIDEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Thanks, exactly the kind of thing I wanted to see.

James.

Angelo

JamesJWeg wrote:

I don't really know what to think of this.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/22/diana.france.ap/index.html

What is your take on the finding? just how did they invade his privacy? Since when did taking a photo of someone walking out of a hotel become invasion of privacy, and as for the crash shots, isn't that a news item?



If this is a repost sorry, I did a search but didn't find anything.

James.

I'm not an expert on French law

Stormdancing

Yes that is a good link and a big win for photographers everywhere.
I do have to say this.
I live in an area with populations of Amish and Mennonite communities.
I believe that one or both religions do not permit photos.
I would never go into their community and take photos of them without permission out of respect for their religion. That's just me.

I also don't sell my pics for $20,000 - $30,000, but wish I could.