Relationship between Photographers Rights and Law Enforcement - Essay Example

?Discussion 2 According to Manning , the basic right of photographers is that they have the right to take pictures of others if they are in a public place, even if that individual did not give consent to having his or her picture taken. This is because, in a public street, the individual has not right to be let alone, which is at the basis for any kind of restrictions put upon photographers. That said, there are restrictions to this general rule. Krages (2007) details some of these restrictions. One is that any photograph which intrudes upon the seclusion or solitude of another would be a basis for a tort. A good example of this would be topless pictures of Kate Middleton which were apparently taken by a long-range lens. Public disclosure of private facts would be another basis for a tort involving photography. For instance, if one takes a picture of another at an AIDS clinic, and it is clear that this picture was taken at an AIDS clinic, and this picture was published, then this would be public disclosure of private facts, and it would be actionable. Publicity that places another in a false light is another restriction. Perhaps an example of this would be to photograph a teetotaler with a beverage that resembles a beer, when it is actually a non-alcoholic beer. The fourth major restriction is that one cannot take another’s likeness or name to use for one’s own advantage (Krages, 2007). An example of this might be taking a picture of somebody, then putting this picture up on one’s own website and use it, without permission, to advertise one’s business. While the right to photograph others in public is pretty straightforward, in that, with some restrictions, there is generally a right to photograph individuals in public, it is different in private places. This might include residences, museums, concerts, etc. The owner of the venue or the residence has a right to restrict photography within the residence or venue. Generally they post signs stating this fact, but, even if they do not, they have the right to verbally prohibit photographers from taking photographs (Manning, 2012). In general, I think that photography laws are just right. I believe that anyone has the right to photograph anybody on the street, yet I also see the need for the restrictions. If an individual is suffering from AIDS and does not want this known, then he or she has the right to make sure that his or her picture at the clinic is not publicized. This is a basic privacy right to keep one’s illness hidden, and it is perfectly acceptable to make sure that this privacy right is not abridged. Likewise, it is a clear invasion of privacy to take pictures with long-range lenses, so this is another excellent restriction. The false light restriction also goes a long way to protecting privacy and protecting others from defamation. In other words, I feel that the restrictions upon photographing individuals provide an excellent balance between the first amendment rights of photographers with the privacy rights of individuals. As for restrictions in private residences and venues, I wish that these restrictions would be lessened, although I understand that private places have a right to make these restrictions. Discussion 3 According to Mendelson (2007), paparazzi are denigrated by journalists, who do not consider what he paparazzi do to be in line with journalism’s ethics. This is because they are intrusive and often harass their celebrity “prey.” Not only that, their focus is often on the trivial, as opposed to the focus of a “serious” journalist. Alach (2008) takes issue with the fact that the paparazzi invade the celebrity’s privacy. He also decries their tactics, stating that paparazzi often scare the children of celebrities, and that they often “hunt in packs,” with hordes of photographers, who have been tipped off about a certain celebrity’s whereabouts, ambushing the hapless celebrity and the family of the celebrity. Alach (2008) finds paparazzi to be exploitive, therefore their First Amendment rights should be curtailed somewhat. He also thinks that tabloids should be penalized for publishing celebrity pictures if their pictures were taken without their knowledge or consent. Nordhaus (1999) states that there should be reasonable restrictions that would restrict paparazzi, such as the Galella rule, which balances the celebrity’s right to be the left alone with the public’s right to know about the celebrity. In my view, while I do believe that celebrities should have some rights to restrict paparazzi, and that these shots often cannot be considered to be legitimate journalism, I also believe that celebrity’s fame is a reason to allow paparazzi. Specifically, I believe this in the cases of people who seek fame and make millions of dollars off of their fame. They seek fame, which means that they should be prepared for the hazards of fame, while they are able to make untold millions off of their fame. For example, Reese Witherspoon makes millions of dollars each year just by being a movie star. When she got into the business, she understood what comes with it, so she can’t complain of the hazards. That said, there should be limitations. Photographers shouldn’t be allowed to scare children, for example, and photographers should not be allowed to take surreptitious photographs such as those taken of Kate Middleton. Then again, with the Kate Middleton situation, she should know better than to be topless outside her residence, therefore common sense should come into play in such situations. So, my overall position is that celebrities are fair game, their children are not, and celebrities should always know that they can be photographed at any time, so they should mind their behavior accordingly. Discussion 3 The topic of Sally Mann’s photographs is an interesting one. According to Edge and Baylis, Mann had the express purpose of shooting her children in an unflinching way. The reason for this is because she wanted to photograph her family in an intimate way, and she wanted to portray her children’s lives in a well-rounded way that captured all their joys, hurts, triumphs, failure, etc. The children just happened to be nude in many of the photographs, but they were not sexual in any way. Perlman (2003), however, does state that children photographed nude in a bathtub may result in a Wal-Mart or other photo developer calling the police and accusing the person of child pornography, so people are better off simply using digital cameras for this purpose. For the other story about the children in the bathtub, at first blush, it seems silly that so much fuss was made about these children and the photographs of them. However, without seeing the photos it would be impossible to tell. That said, with most photos of nude children, at least when it is clearly innocent, like photographing children in bathtubs, it is beyond silly to accuse the parents of child pornography. The intent simply is not there. This is not to say that some pedophile who gets ahold of these photographs would see them as less than innocent. But this is the problem of the person who sees the photographs as being erotic, when this was not the intent, not of the person who innocently took the photograph. Therefore, in the case of the children photographed in the bathtub, which resulted in criminal charges, this is ridiculous without showing that the intent was pornography. The same goes for the Mann photographs, although these were made public, before the children were old enough to give their consent, so this is a slightly different manner. However, after viewing these photographs, it is clear that these photos were not shot with pornographic intent, either. In short, Americans must get over their obsession with the nude bodies and children’s bodies, and realize that not all nude children are meant to be pornographic. Sometimes an innocent photo is just that, and there is not a reason to persecute people for taking these photos. To do so is just silly. Sources Used Alach, P. (2008) Paparazzi and privacy. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 205(28), 205-237. Edge, Sarah and Gail Baylis “Photographing children: the works of Tierney Gearon and Sally Mann.” Available at: http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/uploads/docs/050075.pdf Krages, B. (2007) Legal Handbook for Photographers. New York: Amherst Media. Manning, M. (2012) Less than picture perfect: The legal relationship between photographers’ rights and law enforcement. Tennessee Law Review, 78, 105-161. Mendelson, A. (2007) On the function of the United States paparazzi. Visual Studies, 22(2), 169-183. Nordhaus, J. (1999) Celebrities’ right to privacy: How far should the paparazzi be allowed to go? The Review of Litigation, 18(2), 286-314. Read More