Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T.
Well, yes, you ARE exaggerating. The fee is, I think, around $125. THe $5,000 is a bond, against non-delivery of photos that have been paid for etc. Ludicrous, yes, but again not as draconian as you describe.
|
I stand corrected - I conflated the required $5,000 'bond' with the $125 'fee'. Nevertheless, that's $5,125 out of a photographer's pocket before he can shoot a wedding in the city of New York, right? That a good thing?
Quote:
|
UK newspapers did not previoulsy have a right to photograph identified celebrities' children; it has been forbidden by the Press Commission, their trade organisation, for many years.
|
That has not the force of law. That is agreed-upon 'polite behavior' as you seem to wish to see codified as law.
Quote:
|
SO, again, this is NOT a serious issue for photographers. Saying it represents a dangerous precedent, a silppery slope, a thin end of the wedge, is like saying that banning ownership of anti-aircraft missiles infringes your right to bear arms.
|
Rights are not generally infringed upon all at once in a functioning society, they are taken little by little. Do you disagree?
And rights, once taken, are almost never returned voluntarily. I can think of only a few cases in the US where that has ever been the case.
Freedoms, once surrendered, are seldom regained without violence.
That is, after all, the very definition of a slippery slope.
We can call it something else, since that seems to fash you.
I have been accused several times in this thread of being an 'absolutist'. I've been thinking about it, and perhaps that is true. I hope that there is a place in society for an absolutist, which I do indeed see as preferable to one who has no strong opinions about anything.
Threaded Mode
