Oh no, not the p-word. :-) I would never invade privacy or be confrontational when taking a picture--just if it's in public then I have a right to take the picture the same as any journalist, because I'm under the same 1st amendment laws that they are. Jesse Jackson came through recently, too, now that I think of it... and somewhere around here I've got video I could extract a frame from (he spoke at the courthouse).
But anyway, yes, the GNUFDL pics would be great. :-)
Cheers,
kq
I think it'd be great if there were a large community of GNU FDL paparazzi. Individual little people fan sites are constantly harassed, and rightly so under the copyright laws, for stealing pictures. It'd be neat if there were a repository of GNU FDL photos that fans could use without permission.
--Jimbo
0
At 06:19 AM 7/9/02 -0700, you wrote:
Oh no, not the p-word. :-) I would never invade privacy or be
confrontational when taking a picture--just if it's in public then I have a right to take the picture the same as any journalist, because I'm under the same 1st amendment laws that they are.
I think it'd be great if there were a large community of GNU FDL
paparazzi.
--Jimbo
Good point, You do have the right to say, take a picture of Paul Newman if you encounter him walking on the beach. He doesn't have the right to punch you in the nose, but he may.
If you take a short movie of him and enter it at Sundance maybe there is a legal problem or maybe not.
Of course that is why celebrities avoid the public and tend to go to certain places where that sort of situation is customarily avoided such as Aspen.
Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder wrote:
If you take a short movie of him [Paul Newman] and enter it at Sundance maybe there is a legal problem or maybe not.
As long as you didn't do anything illegal to take the movie, there would be no legal problem with this. Celebrities do have a "right of publicity", which means that their likeness can not be used to sell products, which seems fair enough. But this right does not extend very far -- and is often trumped by 1st Amendment rights.
For example, Time magazine might buy a photo of Britney Spears getting into a limo. The photo could be taken by any random passerby on the street. Then they use that photo, on the cover of the magazine, to sell more magazines. This might seem like a violation of Ms. Spears right of publicity, but it is not.
Of course that is why celebrities avoid the public and tend to go to certain places where that sort of situation is customarily avoided such as Aspen.
*nod* As I understand it, there's an unwritten and sometimes breached code of conduct. The celebs make enough public appearances in controlled settings (movie premieres, posh nightclubs, awards ceremonies, etc.) to keep the tabloids supplied with sufficient shots, and in exchange, the tabloids don't send people to harass them outside their homes and so forth. Problems arise when there is a huge demand for photos, and the celeb doesn't make the customary public appearances, or when there is a "special event".
But none of those types of arrangements have any legal standing, they are just customs. There's a symbiotic relationship between the tabloids and the celebrities. Celebrities need to be on the cover of the magazines. The tabloids need to have pictures of the celebrities.
Even so, there's pretty much no legal restriction on using photos in any sort of journalistic rather than strictly commercial/advertising fashion. No permission is needed.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org