bill Posted June 16, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Beeb, bless 'em, are at it again... BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Your portfolio in focus This is the bit that caught my eye... "Make sure you have permission from anyone pictured before submitting the photographs." Did the law of the land change while I was sleeping? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Hi bill, Take a look here "Your portfolio in focus". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
spylaw4 Posted June 16, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 16, 2007 Possibly they are just being ultra-cautious, as these photos are for public display? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted June 16, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 16, 2007 There's been some paranoia about this subject on a number of forums in the recent past. People complain being photographed but do not ralise they're watched by security cams all over the place. Hey, you took my picture, I /don't want that / want money / want to beat ya up*^>=@? Law didn't change, attitude did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted June 19, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 19, 2007 Hmmm, I just thought to send photo of demonstrations, about 10.000 people were there... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted June 19, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 19, 2007 Or, don't you think reason for asking for those permissions (which is almost impossibile to get, having in mind either number of people into documentary photograph, or randomness of people, you can't stop people you just photographed for documentary photograph and ask for written permission, or rarely you can) is to stop people to make documentary recordings (photo or video). I mean, it is not your business to make records of activiteies and show people what we (government, corporation, etc...) do with you people, and prevent us (government, corporation, etc...) to make fools of you (people). So, you stick with your landscapes, nudes/portraits/like (there is only one or only few models, so it is easy to get permission), still lifes, and don't make documentary photography, and don't stick your noses into our businesses. Did you ever asked yourself why magazines like National Geographics have beautifull photographs and articles about nature and some benigne aspects of cultural life of some nations, but never had any controversial photograph and article which would show how they (government, corporation, etc...) exploit people in those places where NG make those beautifull photographs and articles... (or atleast I don't know about those photographs/articles) Having in mind that corporations rule media life, and there is no more free media and journalists anymore (either corporations are owners of media and employees or with publishing or not publishing ads in media can drive media to success or bankrupcy), I am not surprized that media don't want to have any business with "sensitive" issues. Why BBC would be exception of that, I mean do you really think that today BBC is "better" than others? Is there some brain washing methods like "political corectness" I know, I work in daily newspapers... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwells Posted June 19, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 19, 2007 I am sure you are right, Haris. It's probably also one of the reasons why newspapers seem to be increasingly using pic library shots, which are usually 'model released'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.