On 1/11/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >The way I understand it to be, she'd have no reason to expect privacy in >such a situation. She's in public and the place is a public place. >However, she could have something to say about the commercial use of her >image, but not a non-commercial use (someone, I'm sure, will correct me if >I'm mistaken).
That sounds about right, and same here in the UK. > >However, she could also put up a fuss and make a scene should a >photographer refuse to comply with her wish not to be photographed. No one >needs that for a simple snap, so it makes sense to accept the subject's >wishes. I agree entirely. She might also have her boyfriend's six male cousins along for the ride, all 6 foot 4 inches and 210 lbs each, and that's something to consider! If I had to get a shot (when I'm working) then my focal length tends to increase exponentially according to the level of alarm created by the subject(s) and their perceived ability(ies) to tear me limb from limb :-) > >A little later I saw a woman with an outrageous hat. We spoke, she was >quite pleasant, and she made it clear she didn't want to be photographed. >Of course, I complied .... although I'd much preferred to get that pic than >the pic of the smooching couple ;-)) I prefer the softly softly approach also. I'm not averse to paying for my photo opps. Buskers and beggars profit from me readily. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
