On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote: > You are incorrect. A better example would be reality shows like Cops or > Cheaters, where we aren't taking about bystanders or news, but shows filmed > for entertainment purposes. These shows will blur principals that refuse to > sign releases, but not because it's illegal to film them; rather, it's > because they're worried that without a proper release they may be sued.
I never meant to indicate that to photograph someone in public is illegal, and in fact, I did not say that. Yes, the threat is a lawsuit, and that is the reason for caution, particularly when the focus is on a single individual. > I can't recall ever seeing an obscured image in a legit newspaper. Naming > the people in a picture is a question of policy at that particular paper, > not a question of legalities. After all, when the reporter asks you what > your name is you can always lie. Same response as above. And, as to obscuring faces, with video it is usually done by simply cropping out anything above the shoulder, usually by the camera operator at the time the video is shot. I have never seen anything get pixellated out or anything similar to that. Steve ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
