Le dimanche 19 Juin 2005 10:47, James Royall a écrit :
> Thank you for the clarification Manuel. The laws seem incredibly
> restrictive, and surely mean that street photography is not possible in
> France?
It's becoming very, very, very diffcult ; but you should never underestimate
the /ego/ of basic human beings : people are generaly flattered to have a
nice picture of themselves, and sometimes they even ask for you to take the
picture. I've never had problems to have them sign me a contract afterward,
and I offer them a print of the picture.
> What about photo-journalism, does this have some kind of
> exemption?
No.
> In fact as it's a reinterpretation of an 18th century law,
> then would the law not cover all photos taken since 1789? Or is it only
> since the date of the reinterpretation?
I didn't wanted to enter the deepnesses of the difference between written,
roman law and common law, but you're pushing me... so it's not a
"reinterpretation" to be precise, it's just that our higher court has
recentely "discovered" the "true" meaning of the original law. But they can
as well "discover" a "better" meaning tomorrow morning !
> If it's the former then in
> theory a lot of great photos taken throughout the 2oth century could
> never be exhibited or published, which is obviously unworkable.
I wouldn't bet my shirt on the "obvious" part of your statement.
> Just
> realised that the Paris Match photos would have been taken before the
> reinterpretation, so how can there be an exhibition of photos without
> the necessary releases from those depicted? It seems an impossible
> situation.
It is.
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|