Powered by Blogger.
RSS

[artshow_photo] Re: Now we're interfering?

 

Well, yeah. Except that the chances of either of the parties always doing
the right things on their own is slim to none -- although there now are a
larger number of corporations who do try - so therefore we often need to
draw the lines of acceptable practice with laws.

If we as photogrpahers always followed the practice of making sure that
property owners know who we and can reach us at any time if they have
concerns about where our photographs end up, farmers and farm corporations
would quickly learn to differentiate between us fine art-photo-biz types and
the activists.

But we don't: we go out into the rural world and assume that everything we
see we have the right to photograph without permission or polite enquiry,
and then get all prickly because someone finally wants to know what we are
doing and why OR because we get tarred with the same brush as the activists
and evil corporations and the laws prevent us from doing as we please
without regard for the impact of the activity on those around us.

We're part of the problem: we can be part of the solution or just take our
lumps when the laws get passed without our input or assistance.

And we might actually find a way to make things work out in our favour ALONG
WITH the farmers if we are participative rather than confrontational.

Bottom line: if all of US behaved responsibly and ethically and openly,
none of the activists would have any way to hide in the crowds of people
taking photos -- and if they didn't hide in the crowds, they'd stick out
like sore thumbs WHILE they were doing the nefarious, and could be arrested
on the spot instead of having to be defended against in a later lawsuit.

The law itself isn't such a bad thing: it IS just an attempt by people to
make things equitable for everyone, and fostered as it is by the only people
involved directly in the dispute, it naturally doesn't take into account the
views of those of us who are also affected by it but not directly a party to
the disagreement. If we want it to take our interests into account, we need
to get involved in the discussion in a participative and open way, not close
the doors on the idea at the outset.




So I would say PETA & HSUS do the right thing and don't fake evidence and
Corporate America act responsibly and ethically. There would be no need for
these types of laws trying to make it on the books.

Mike

Regardless of who is trying criminalize photography, why they are doing it,
and where they are doing it, my biggest concern is on a broader scale.

Once one of these laws gets on the books, where will it end?

There are laws on the books everywhere for trespassing. is it necessary to
add another level to that?

Scott

Leah Murray
Photographer & Digital Imaging Artist
.

Digital Visions Imaging
leah@leahmurray.ca www.leahmurray.ca
<http://www.leahmurray.ca/>
.

.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Donate to support the ArtShowPhoto Forum at
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm

PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.

If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.

Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com 
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

0 comments:

Post a Comment