Do you recognize this writer? (Pic)

F'cryin' out loud, backslashbaby--get over there the next time you see him and ASK.

I'm going nuts here!

I wish there were interesting artistic types at my local coffee mill. Instead, it's all high school kids ducking class.

At this point *I* am the only interesting artistic type there, and they avoid me because it's clear that I can read, and they can't.

When I have been in places flooded with interesting artistic types they don't talk to me then, either, because I don't look artsy-fartsy enough.

Even when I bought a leather coat and wore lots of black they didn't chat.

I suppose if I got an all-over henna tat for my face that might change things.

The Bohemian Look is really hard to nail down in Texas. Mostly we're too slow for New York and too ugly for L.A.

Gil, post a picture and we'll suggest makeovers... ROFL!

What, you mean the avatar is actually you? Oh. Well. In that case, no suggestions.

The bohemian look is hard to nail down in Texas?

I don't know about that. I'm in Dallas, and I think I got it nailed down pretty good in this coffee shop.

Oh, wait. maybe it's not the bohemian look, but the homeless look that I'm throwing down. No wonder no one talks to me. . .(as he sniffs his armpit to check)

I admit, that was me. I was dictating my novel using a PC mouse.

I just started a new thread, somewhat along the same lines as this thread, and I'd like you guys to tell me what you think of the experiment I'm proposing.

The Awesome power of the internet -maybe

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160429

Jamesaritchie said:

Trust me, as a former journalist, you're wrong about this. There most certainly is a right to this kind of privacy in public. If there weren't, I wouldn't have had to get so many people to sign waivers that allowed me to use their photos.

Click to expand...

James, I don't want want to beat a dead horse, but there really should be some clarity here. I'm just thinking there's some confusion regarding wording.

No journalist in America has EVER needed a waiver (aka model release) of any sort to use a pic of a person in a public place OR during a newsworthy event. During a newsworthy event, you are legally able to jump a private fence onto someone's private property to shoot pic of their house burning down. A journalist faces NO civil liability, and can only face criminal charges if a cop orders him/her to move for safety reasons and he/she refuses. I know first hand, since I've been thrown in the back of patrol cars by rookie cops a few times. Journalists need to maintain relationships with cops, and yellow police tape issues need to be resolved prior to emergencies...and they usually are.

Imagine covering a contentious town hall meeting and shooting angry protesters and having them be able to say, "You can't use my photo because I'm not signing a waiver!"? They may be able to make it difficult to ID them, but "refused to be identified", makes a news statement in itself.

Another example: say you take a photo of your hated neighbor tripping over a crack in the sidewalk. He has a stupid look on his face and his big belly is showing, and it's probably the most embarrassing photo ever. If you sell the photo to a newspaper as a feature or news picture, you are 100% safe from any legal action. Sell the same photo to be used in an ad for concrete repairs and you and the business are liable for a law suit. News vs. commercial use. You don't even have to be a photojournalist to fall under the same protections as a photojournalist.

Photojournalists get names, ages (for kids), and home towns solely for the purpose of good captioning. Period. Editors hate photos which aren't ID'd. It's a sign of lazy work.

Again, photojournalists NEVER need waivers for covering news stories, and especially not for taking photos in public places. Journalists with pen or camera are protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which addresses freedom of the press very specifically.

If the OP posted the photo on a commercial website with the clear intention of having the image result in a profit, then the subject would have civil recourse. It would be limited, however, to the range of financial benefit. If she made $20 of ad revenue, then she could be liable for $20, or perhaps three times that amount in some states. I'm not a lawyer, and only know the general principles. Further, if the photo was used in that same forum in a derogatory manner, then a punitive award could be made. AW, btw, has an enormous level of protection because of the presentation of its informational value, even when it comes to lighter subjects, in the same vein of college newspapers.

Courtesy, politeness, and accurate captioning are a different beast.





ETA: and this is all speaking ONLY to US laws...

Cassiopeia said:

Was he in the crowd? This man is not walking in a crowd. He's alone and the photo is clearly of him. This got hammered into me, in two of my classes in the last TWO years. You must have consent when the photo taken is clearly intended to focus on the individual only. Now, you probably can slide by because you aren't profiting from it but I'd be hesitant to shout out, that there's no right to privacy in public.

Click to expand...

Don't forget, you're talking legal definitions here. IANAL, but I reckon it would be nigh on impossible to get agreement about exactly what counts as a crowd. Two people, three? If there's one person in the foreground, and many in the background, is that a crowd? How far does the one person have to be before they are seperate from the crowd?
You'd pretty much need to make it entirely illegal to take pictures that had a person in them anywhere, unless you had permission. Which would make sports photography, for example, really difficult.

Polenth said:

Whether it's illegal or not, you're risking his personal safety by posting the picture. There may be reasons why he wouldn't want his picture in public.

Click to expand...

Um...how on earth does it risk his safety? Unless someone used voodoo magic on the image. Seriously, I'm completely at a loss here.


ETA: I can't even see the picture at work. Flickr maybe? That's blocked here.

I agree with whoever said he looks like Neil Diamond, but with hair.

stormie said:

I agree with whoever said he looks like Neil Diamond, but with hair.

Click to expand...

He's just waiting for Cracklin Rosie to join him for a drink. . .

Or Sweet Caroline.