From: Priit Kull (priit@abfbaltic.ee)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 11:04:58 EEST
Bathsheba Grossman wrote
> Letting out the case of objects whose likenesses are specifically
> copyrighted, surely this either doesn't apply or isn't enforced in the
> case of news and art photography? Otherwise crowd scenes could never
> be shown in newspapers.
>
Once in a subway in Moscow I noticed an anti AIDS campaign poster. This
particular one called for more tolerance and understanding, it depicted an
anonymous crowd and the text was like "It could be anyone". It was a crowd,
but the faces were recogniseable. Tolerance and understanding are fine, and
I am sorry for the unfortunate, but I do not want to be unasked part of a
poster that is indirectly implying I have AIDS. Why can't I own the
copyright of my face? Why does Naomi Campell get paid for her face and I do
not? OK in this case it could be the market at work, and the number of
people willing to pay. There are still some naturally living people who do
not allow their pictures to be taken, stating that it is magic and the
picture will take a piece of their soul. There may be truth in it. Once the
picture is taken you can not control anymore what will happen to it and
writing AIDS over my face is bad magic, even if done with good purpose.
Best regards
Priit Kull
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://rapid.lpt.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 20:13:53 EET