Said like a good Catholic, Ann! g
Mind you, I don't remember the priest in the confessional ever saying the
or whatever turns you on part at the end of my confessions. vbg
cheers,
frank the lapsed Catholic (or as my sister calls me a recovering Catholic
g
The optimist thinks this is the best
On Thursday, November 27, 2003, at 02:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, someone (three guesses who) is soon going to object to this
thread,
so you may respond by email if you like.
Please do. We've been there and done that. We don't need to do it again.
: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Very OT: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:37 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
No worries... happens to the best of 'em.
On a different note, my apologies to the list
Bob Blakely wrote:
My post was very... acrid, and there was no need for it's tone. I am sorry.
Say ten Hail mary's and go in peace (or whatever turns you on :) )
Of course you don't need to read anything that went before to agree with his
post. In fact, you don't even need to read his
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Bob Blakely wrote:
My post was very... acrid, and there was no need for it's tone. I am sorry.
Say ten Hail mary's and go in peace (or whatever turns you on :) )
Of course you don't need to read anything that went before to agree with his
Chris argued a non sequitur and you, not noticing that Chris's reply doesn't
follow the argument, jerked your knee into a reply.
Regards,
Bob...
--
Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent
socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers
[you
have a bit
of sympathy and taste.
cheers,
frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The morality of taking
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote:
Have you been to an airport or train station within the last 10 years? Have
you taken a look at the lamp posts around your town? Have you watched Law
Order on TV? Have you watched the Discovery channel? They're already
looking. Now, as for doing
My post was very... acrid, and there was no need for it's tone. I am sorry.
Of course you don't need to read anything that went before to agree with his
post. In fact, you don't even need to read his post!
You enjoy this day as well.
Regards,
Bob...
--
Huh? I don't necessarily dispute the second part, but where did you get
the warrant part from? I didn't make a statement either way about needing
a warrant. Obviously if they're recording your movement in public they
don't need a warrant. You're saying the same thing I am.
chris
On Thu, 27
See below, Chris
Regards,
Bob...
--
Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent
socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers
[you know who you are] from receiving
discomforting enlightenment.
-Larry Elders
From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL
I have to leave for work now, but I'll answer your points later. For now,
I'll just say that the Alien and Sedition Act is eerily similar to the
Patriot Act in many ways. Of course the government could always eavesdrop
on you, but they need to demonstrate criminal intent to a court before
they
Chris,
I'd be most interested in your perspective (as an American voter) on Bob's
interesting statement quoted below, given the 2000 Florida voter roles scam and
the decision of the US Supreme Court, both of which I have followed with some
interest. It certainly seems that, given the
Below...
Regards,
Bob...
--
Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent
socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers
[you know who you are] from receiving
discomforting enlightenment.
-Larry Elders
From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I
This all started out as a question of the morality of taking certain
photos - reasonably on topic.
It quickly evolved to include a question of legality of taking certain
photos - still reasonably on topic.
With Chris Brogden, it morphed into surveillance and rights - on topic?
Questionable.
Hi,
frank theriault wrote:
Actually, now that I went to the link, I think Bob ~does~ look like that,
doesn't he?
vbg
But, seriously, Mike, thanks for that. We got On the Buses here in Canada
many years ago - I'm sure it's available on some cable-only station
somewhere, but many many
I apologize for being a dipstick.
Regards,
Bob...
--
Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent
socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers
[you know who you are] from receiving
discomforting enlightenment.
-Larry Elders
From: [EMAIL
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote:
This all started out as a question of the morality of taking certain
photos - reasonably on topic.
It quickly evolved to include a question of legality of taking certain
photos - still reasonably on topic.
With Chris Brogden, it morphed into
You are... Holy. I am... Evil. I'm sorry to have disagreed with you.
Regards,
Bob...
--
Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent
socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers
[you know who you are] from receiving
discomforting enlightenment.
I`m with Bob. If you`re in public, you take your chances.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Bob Blakely
No. None. No exceptions. We are all adults here, or at least we should be.
It's time we (all people) accept responsibility for our person and our
actions in the public arena - that they are public. But you say, There are
children out there! Yes, and they have parents and guardians to accept this
- Original Message -
From: Steve Larson
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
I`m with Bob. If you`re in public, you take your chances.
If you take and publish a picture that shows a person in a less than
flattering way, you might find yourself in court on defamation
Larson
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
I`m with Bob. If you`re in public, you take your chances.
If you take and publish a picture that shows a person in a less than
flattering way, you might find yourself in court on defamation charges.
People have rights to control how
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Steve Larson
I`m with Bob. If you`re in public, you take your chances.
If you take and publish a picture that shows a person in a less than
flattering way, you might find yourself in court on defamation charges.
People have rights to
Since you mention Canada, Bob,
In the Province of Quebec, as they've patterned their Civil Code after the
French Civil Code, they have very restrictive laws about photographing in
public, or at least showing such photos. I know that the press in Quebec
are quite freaking out about this.
. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:10:15 -0600
Bob Blakely wrote:
1. It is never immoral and should never be illegal to freeze an instant
Chris Brogden wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote:
We are all adults here, or at least we should be. It's time we (all
people) accept responsibility for our person and our actions in the
public arena - that they are public.
Right... so it's perfectly okay for you to photograph
On 24/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Geez, Anders,
It's me and Cotty talking here. Who the hell cares what we say? (Okay, not
to insult the erudite Mr. Cottrel: Who the hell cares what that theriault
guy says?)
Actually Frank, it's Cottrell with two Ls.
But you can call me sir.
To quote the Soup Nazi, from the infamous Seinfeld episode of the same name:
Don't push your luck, little man!
-frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually Frank, it's
To quote the Soup Nazi, from the infamous Seinfeld episode of the same
name:
Don't push your luck, little man!
Aw - the Soup Nazi... Mmmm - I love this episode :-)
ukasz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
www.fotopolis.pl
===
of taking a photograph
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:01:30 +0100
To quote the Soup Nazi, from the infamous Seinfeld episode of the same
name:
Don't push your luck, little man!
Aw - the Soup Nazi... Mmmm - I love this episode :-)
£ukasz
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 18.59 + 03-11-21, Cotty wrote:
a great problem in today's first world societies.
At 21.38 -0500 03-11-23, frank theriault wrote:
or Life in the First World
Now two persons have said this...
but isn't the US considered the second world?
anders
-
Anders,
I think the original ranking was
1st world = western world capitalist democracies
2nd world = communist countries (iron curtain)
3rd world = the rest
What puzzles me is that the 1st and 3rd terms prevail after the iron curtain
lifted.
cheers,
Jostein
Quoting Anders Hultman [EMAIL
Hi,
Monday, November 24, 2003, 8:04:19 AM, you wrote:
a great problem in today's first world societies.
or Life in the First World
Now two persons have said this...
but isn't the US considered the second world?
the Americas are the New World
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 24. November 2003 09:51
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Anders,
I think the original ranking was
1st world = western world capitalist democracies
2nd world = communist countries
. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Anders Hultman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:04:19 +0100
At 18.59 + 03-11-21, Cotty wrote:
a great problem in today's first world societies.
At 21.38
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First, let me say, that I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's making me
think about many issues, and confront things that I wouln't normally
confront.
[snipped]
But, here's my point (again, there is one... g). I tend to take photos
of
LCD`s have nothing to do with it ;)
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: AW: The morality of taking a photograph
In addition to the drivel in my
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:02:35 +0200, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
Yes, maybe you, and I, and a whole lot of us photographers in fact
and in a way are discriminating against certain people whom we
decide not to shoot, because of personal preferences.
Humans discriminate. It's what they do. It's how
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AW: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:00:05 -0800
LCD`s have nothing to do with it ;)
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http
From http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm
The First, Second, Third World and the Forth World
A rough probably outdated model of the geopolitical world from the time of
the cold war.
There is no official definition of the terms of the first, second, and the
third world.
Hi,
Bob Walkden wrote:
There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of
permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same issues that people
have discussed with respect to Shel's photo:
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html
Try
Hi again,
mike wilson wrote:
an easily atriculated response
Told you I couldn't do it I meant articulated
m
Hi guys ...
This was a very interesting, and for me, disturbing article. Since many photos are
already
manipulated images by dint of their printing (crop, tonal manipulations, perspective,
choice
of film, etc.) I'd like to think that they represent the point of view of the
photographer,
and a
Bob Walkden:
There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of
permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same issues that people
have discussed with respect to Shel's photo:
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html
Unfortunately I can't find a way to link
Hi,
Sunday, November 23, 2003, 4:19:29 PM, you wrote:
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html
Try http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/jacobson/magnum1.html
The essay is by Colin Jacobson, who is one of the UK's leading photo editors.
He discusses Martin Parr's work used for very
Sheesh...
Lasse
I have plenty of empathy, the mistake people are making is presuming to think
they know how she would feel about her photograph.
How can they know? I wasn't going to say anymore, I was trying to make a
point and I knew it would be taken wrong.
But by leaping to her defense
Hi,
Bob Walkden wrote:
It's a different type of documentary style from the Picture Post and
Life style. Parr is more in the tradition of Tony Ray-Jones, who
worked in the style of people like Joel Meyerowitz (they were
friends), and turned that style onto the English scene. Parr has
Hi,
Sunday, November 23, 2003, 5:29:05 PM, you wrote:
I see this all the time at work: poor, deluded students taking Alevel
photography, producing (very low quality, technically) work that is
obviously meant to be photojournalism but is nothing more than a cracked
mirror held up to their
PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:36:41 +
Hi,
There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of
permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same
First, let me say, that I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's making me
think about many issues, and confront things that I wouln't normally
confront.
So, today, I was thinking about all of this when I was walking around with
my LX. I had the 19mm Vivitar on it, as I've not really used
: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
First, let me say, that I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's making
me
think about many issues, and confront things that I wouln't normally
confront.
So, today, I was thinking about all of this when I
Hi Frank ...
People are people ... some have useful arms and legs, others don't and may need help
to get around (wheel chair, crutches, what have
you). Some may look pretty scruffy, or appear to be drunk, but they are just people,
and you're not exploiting them any more or less
than you may be
It's extremely cruel, Shel - you certainly have not shown it to anyone.
If she were not so pathologically obese the shot with the sign in it and
her clutching the bottle would have been fun.
IF you took the shot without showing her face at all, for purposes of
showing how ill we, as a nation, are
I honestly fail to see how taking pictures of what is, of what is actually
out there can be any sort of inherent put down. Those things just *are.*
Photography, like painting/drawing, in addition to what is really there, is
so much a matter of what we, the viewer, bring to it.
Sort of like a
BTW, the E-10/E-20 is a marvelous stealth camera. The LCD panel folds
out to any angle (although it doesn't twist you can sit it in your lap),
and the since there is no moving mirror the camera is very quiet when
the shutter is released. Of course, its not small at all . . .
This is an
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Three people I care about have serious weight problems, it's killing them,
none of them are comfortable with having their picture taken. The all hate it.
So I may have an extra reason for being disturbed by the picture.
I have felt much better once I knew Shel did not really
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Three people I care about have serious weight problems, it's killing them,
none of them are comfortable with having their picture taken. The all hate it.
So I may have an extra reason for being disturbed by the picture.
I have felt much better
By the way , how many of you remember the lawsuit David Letterman lost a few years
ago to a woman who was caught on camera at the US Open eating a piece of fruit
(or maybe ice cream) with the juice dribbling down her face. He showed it repeatedly
on his program.
She was heavy and had a
I have thought off and on about this thread all night. What bothers me is that
the majority of the people who have commented seem to feel the woman is
contemptible or pathetic and it is impolite to take her photo because of that.
I see nothing wrong with the woman, and I find myself
I accept the admonishment for some sort of wrongdoing. In a few days I'll
figure out what the hell it was I did wrong.
Regards,
Bob...
--
Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers,
they hate abortion opponents, they hate all
religions except Islam, post
I honestly fail to see how taking pictures of what is, of what is actually
out there can be any sort of inherent put down. Those things just *are.*
Photography, like painting/drawing, in addition to what is really there, is
so much a matter of what we, the viewer, bring to it.
Sort of
You better! The list just doesn`t tolerate that kind of stuff. ;)
P.S., love the sig.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: The morality of taking
When you figure it out, let me know g. I was in obstreperous mode and I
apologize.
Best,
Lewis
I accept the admonishment for some sort of wrongdoing. In a few days I'll
figure out what the hell it was I did wrong.
Regards,
Bob...
Thanks for pointing that out, Bob. I will check with you before
I don't like looking at pictures of me either, Marnie.
annsan
Well, neither do I, actually. I feel I am very unphotogenic. Most of the
photographs I have seen of myself do not capture my winning personality. :-)
I guess what bothers me, is some people look at that woman and all they see
if a
Another area to find beauty: http://thecenturyproject.com/photos.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just disagree and always will. I also find often find beauty where others do
not.
planned
beforehand, or
that these kids, seeing the camera, decided to play towards it. Of
course,
that's just an assumption, a guess.
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: The morality of taking
From: Dario Bonazza 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Despite some folks here look disturbed by excessive talk on
digital stuff, it seems that discussions like this one (as old as
photography and impossible to bring any conclusion) caught PDML more than
anything else. Have you noticed than any
I'll confess I find it difficult to look at her, I should be lying if I
did not.
annsan
Okay, I'll add one thing, because I finally figured out how to word it,
annsan.
By trying to protect her you are coming from the place that she NEEDS
protection. I.E. That there is something wrong
Hi,
Saturday, November 22, 2003, 10:25:56 PM, you wrote:
This too, will pass, and we'll gravitate back to the regular topics.
Should we even be discussing this shot? Was it taken with Pentax equipment?
I don't see a problem about discussing it. The ethical aspects of
photography are seldom
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll confess I find it difficult to look at her, I should be lying if I
did not.
annsan
Okay, I'll add one thing, because I finally figured out how to word it,
annsan.
By trying to protect her you are coming from the place that she NEEDS
protection. I.E.
Whoa, John ...
There are many aspects to photography, not just the technical aspect of digital
software and sensors, and film and shutter speeds and all that. What's the
point of all of that if a photograph doesn't result. So, discussing the result
of all the technical aspects of cameras and
Firstly, welcome back Shel. I was unsubbed and out of town when you
returned, and what a pleasant surprise it was to see your name when I
resubbed.
A thought came to mind as I read this thread (and I haven't read everything
so forgive me if I repeat someone else). Whenever I've pointed a camera
He was using IR film and IR flash bulbs. Quite likely the subjects did not know
they were being photographed. Having played with that stuff back in the early
fifties I can assure you you had to be staring into the flash reflector to see
it go off.
--
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
First, Weegee used
I'll confess I find it difficult to look at her, I should be lying if I
did not.
annsan
Okay, I'll add one thing, because I finally figured out how to word it,
annsan.
By trying to protect her you are coming from the place that she NEEDS
protection. I.E. That there is
Oppenheimer
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:16:37 -0800
Well, an honest response is what I was looking for. It's obvious I've
mixed
feelings about this photo
-
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest
portrayal
in a photo?
regards,
frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Fri, 21
I suppose you could assert that it's not a random scene, but it was not
planned.
The woman just appeared where i happened to be, when I happened to be
there with a
camera. That's pretty random, especially considering it's a place I
rarely
frequent. Choosing to take the picture was influenced by
Go here: http://thecenturyproject.com/photos.htm and scroll down ...
You'll see a photo that gives some support to your POV.
shel
Everyone seems to feel that because she's obese, that she's ashamed of her
body, and hates herself, and would never agree to be photographed.
Has it ever
it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:27:03 -0500
Cotty wrote:
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
So, how did you sneak it? Did
Hi gang,
Notice I said taking, for this photo wasn't offered, and the shutter
was tripped surreptitiously. The woman had no idea that I was going to
take this picture of her.
I have mixed feelings about this shot. On the one hand it seemingly
reflects an aspect of American culture, yet, on the
this type of photography.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:10 AM
Subject: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi gang,
Notice I said taking, for this photo wasn't offered, and the shutter
]
Päivä: 21. marraskuuta 2003 18:04
Aihe: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi gang,
Notice I said taking, for this photo wasn't offered, and the shutter
was tripped surreptitiously. The woman had no idea that I was going to
take this picture of her.
I have mixed feelings about this shot
I think you missed the point. I didn't judge her, but, rather, looked at the
various possibilities that may have existed in her life, and in mine, as well. It
was musing, not judging ... exploring possibilities.
I believe we can all agree that a photograph should make the viewer think. Should
But, coming back to this picture, is it the unflattering portrayal that
bothers you the most, or that the photo was taken without permission? Had
this photo been of a beautiful woman, in a more flattering situation, but
still taken in the same manner, would you feel the same way?
How would
Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:10 AM
Subject: The morality of taking a photograph
Hi gang,
Notice I said taking, for this photo wasn't offered, and the shutter
was tripped surreptitiously. The woman had no idea that I was going
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest
portrayal of
a subject when they know they are going to be photographed and start
performing for the camera? I suppose it could be in some situations,
Do all portraits have to be attractive to be good portraits?
Most certainly not. The portrait is entirely what the photographer wants
it to be.
The classic example that I use is Richard Avedon's portraits of his
father. As one critic described it, he murdered his own father with the
camera.
The
Hi,
Your comments are quite helpful and well thought out.
Actually, there is no title to the photo other than the working title so I
could recognize it on the hard disk. Had I been completely comfortable with
the photograph, and my taking it, it would have probably had a real title, and
been
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest
portrayal of
a subject when they know they are going
the framing, which is, of
course, subjective. Socially, it provides a statement on a current topic
that many would see as a great problem in today's first world societies.
Morally? Not answerable.
IMO the morality of taking a photograph rests with the photographer at
the time just before the shutter
It's a great shot. An interesting composition and compelling subject
matter. However, I would be afraid of angering and hurting the subject. if
I was caught taking it surreptitiously. I doubt if I would have the nerve
to ask her to pose. She almost surely would say no. If I thought I could
shoot
Hi John ...
My purpose for showing this photograph here and at this time is to work through
some issues about the purpose of my photography as well as some personal
issues. However, when the photograph presented itself to me, those thoughts did
not cross my mind. I saw something in the scene
1. It is never immoral and should never be illegal to freeze an instant (any
instant) in time of any one or thing seen in a public place. There is
clearly no expectation of privacy in the public arena.
2. The presentation of truth clearly available to the public is never
immoral. It is
Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but:
I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in
publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken
or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To
take
I love it when Bob wakes up.
tv
-Original Message-
From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.It is never immoral and should never be illegal to
freeze an instant (any
instant) in time of any one or thing seen in a public
place. There is
clearly no expectation of
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken?
Yes. At least there's nothing to prevent you from taking it. I
personally have no issue with sneaked shots. It's been done as long as
there have been
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Social commentary as Raimo said. Perfectly acceptable. I find it an
interesting photograph. I am not repulsed. I am not repulsed by fatties,
Marnie you *fatist* !!! LOL.
I've always wondered about that, actually, how does a photographer track
down
Bob Blakely wrote:
9.I bet that's a diet drink she has there - or perhaps a new prescription for her glasses.
May I take your order, miss?
Yes, I'll have a double cheeseburger, a large fry, with a diet coke.
Would you like that order value sized?
Sure, why not...
Only in the good ol' U.S.
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
