Let me quickly correct my own post. I was distracted by -- well, that's
nobody's business but my own. Suffice to say, I had good cause to be so.
Strike the word "commercial" from my response. ANY commercial use of a
photograph requires a release from any recognizable person therein. I don't
know how that word crept into what I wrote.
Taking photographs without prior permission of people who have a legitimate
expectation of being left alone and unmolested, as those in a restaurant have
at least a minimally recognized quasi-right to expect, could result in unhappy
consequences, either immediately, via confrontation and/or a punch in the
snout, perhaps even an attempted insertaion of photographic apparatus into one
or more orifices, or subsequently through the endeavors of practitioners
licensed to speak and advocate for others in a court of law.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
> Take it from an old photo journalist, a restaurant is, at best, really "iffy"
> in
> terms of being a public place. If an event occurs therein of legitimate
> public
> interest, such as a mob killing or a really, really newsworthy Rotary Club
> meeting, like where the mayor gets drunk and sings a bawdy seafaring ditty,
> that's one thing. Taking picures for commercial purposes of folks caught
> unawares whilst stuffing their faces, perhaps while dining sans spouse or
> significant other, could well result in some very unpleasant legal
> consequences.
> While certainly not rising to the level of one's bedroom or bath, at least in
> the US of A a certain expectancy of privacy obtains in such environs.
>
> Let's be careful out there.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|