Photo ownership (a little dsturbing, though....)

A very raw subject. Always was, but has become much more so lately.. I am not trying to make any type of statement, just sharing information to fellow photographers..

https://www.postandcou​rier.com …eb-9922-539fa08cfc9e.html

Wow! Zero response! Do people not care, or afraid to comment on it????

I understand, no matter what is said it will be criticized.

I agree with the judge.

The world has gone mad; political correctness is the bane of modern-day society.

People living in the here and now should concentrate on the hear and now. What happened in the past should stay in the past; learn from it and move on.

Whatever next, Henry VIII being tried for murder? Lets face it there are quite a few families that would have a very good case against him.

The citizens of the "outrage" society, propped up by the political pandering of gutless politicians hungry for more power. I can't read ALL of the story because I run an ad blocker. I really don't need to as its been on full display for about the last 20 years.

It's a tough subject, no doubt. Our country (and many others) haves some very disturbing history. We should not ignore !! We also should not cancel it!!

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.", or something like that.

I believe the university owns the photos. I also believe they should use those photos to show how disgusting they are. If they can make money with, great! Donate every penny to the proper causes! Tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee does not end racism. I would argue it INCREASES racism. If you start tearing apart a person's culture/history, they will just hate you more.

HKGuns wrote in post #19204861
The citizens of the "outrage" society, propped up by the political pandering of gutless politicians hungry for more power. I can't read the story because I run an ad blocker. I really don't need to as its been on full display for about the last 20 years.

If you couldn't read it, how can you properly comment on the article?

The story is now everywhere. It wasn't when I first posted it.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19204869
The story is now everywhere. It wasn't when I first posted it.

Whatever...s/he said they couldn't read the story, they said they didn't need to read it either.
I'm merely curious how one can post cogently on a subject they couldn't read, and further said they didn't need to read it, either.

HKGuns wrote in post #19204861
The citizens of the "outrage" society, propped up by the political pandering of gutless politicians hungry for more power. I can't read the story because I run an ad blocker. I really don't need to as its been on full display for about the last 20 years.

Ignoring the subject matter of the photos, as controversial subjects, if we first adhere to the principle that we all, as photographers, believe about the photographs we take, we own the Copyright. And if the subject is on public property and has no expectation of privacy even if not on public property...

"But the judge hearing the case sided with Harvard, which argued that Lanier had no legal claim to the photos. In her decision, Middlesex Superior Court Judge Camille Sarrouf said the photos are the property of the photographer, not the subject."

...the judge is protecting our inherent rights as the photographer! Imagine if anyone appearing as the subject of our photograph, while on public property, laid claim to our photographs of them and were given possession of our photograph, or their heirs doing the same to us. We would very loudly object!

Subjects in photos taken 'for commercial purposes' do have some form of compensation for the subject, unless they signed a release. But I doubt that the photo was take for that reason...in the days before commercial advertising or before images of people were widely used on labels to promote the product.

Back to the subject, people in slavery. The exhibition of photos arguably do not exploit, but serve as a record of history. And, as a record of historical fact, what would be the rational explanation to remove the display of what happened? We or institutions of education display images of WWII criminal actions to remind us to NOT REPEAT the attrocities, not as an exploitation of those of Jewish descent. I believe OP followup post #5 states it properly.

This is why I posted it, as a "win" for photographers, but the topic is a tough one..

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19204848
Wow! Zero response! Do people not care, or afraid to comment on it????

I understand, no matter what is said it will be criticized.

Ummmm, I don't care....Not sure how the plaintiff actually proved the relationship...but I dont care once I read Benjamin Crump was involved...

I have no idea about him so I won't comment (I mean, I did a quick google search so I know who is is). That being said, I believe lawyers play a large roll in the crumbling of our society. Just posting a win for photographers.

I wonder how Tamara Lanier knew that these photo’s were taken against their will the were taken in 1850.

I know that a lot people want to change the history of slavery but it is part of the history of what happened in the US at the time whether we agree with it or not we cannot change it. The people we’re doing what was accepted
behavior of the time period. The Egyptian’s had slaves but I’ve not seen anyone destroying the Pyramids.

I understand that there are many views on this subject and everyone will have their own opinion and there in mine there is no room for racism, but we can not change the past bet we can learn from it

I would agree with you, mostly.. One can argue the photo was taken without their consent just by the fact they are slaves & would choose not to be there if a choose would be given.

This leads to another issue, one I dealt with just 2 hours ago. Went to my old hometown to shoot some "street" photography. I don't do that type of photography, I just got a new film camera with a 3 month warranty & wanted to run a roll through to test it. Someone called the police because "someone was walking around town ASKING people if he could take their photo." How dare I be polite & ASK when I don't have to!!!!

There is no expectation of privacy out in public. So, even if the subjects were not slaves, if they were out in public they do not need to give permission.

Again, I believe the fact that they are slaves automatically shows this was taken without permission. EVERYTHING they were doing was against their will...

Be glad that some lady did not accuse you of taking lewd photos of them as they bent over to admire a flower...it HAS happened!

Be glad no one accused you of surreptitiously taking photos of children...shooting on film, you would have no immiediate proof of your innocence, and no ability to exhibit the photos taken nor the ability to immediatedly remove 'offensive' photos...you'd almost have to pull the roll out and expose it to the light!

Society has gone crazy.