Posted on 06/08/2018 5:53:22 PM PDT by Kid Shelleen
Don't be silly (and ignorant.)
Professional photographers and artists, whose work will potentially have wide exposure must get a "model release" for any person who is recognizable in any photo given public circulation.
Or, as happens often a photo of an individual is used for sales of commercial products, without that written consent.
Another reason not to shop there.
It would depend where the Starbuck’s is located——the couple I drop into are in very nice areas.
.
.
God forbid the mom opens her mouth and tells the photographer that one more picture aimed her daughter’s direction, his camera will be so far up his ass, pictures will pop out his mouth.
I thought it was named after Starbuck the Viper Pilot on Battlestar Galactica. Oh frak!
Had to pay to use restroom at McDonalds in Ghent, Belgium, even though I was a paying McDonald’s customer.
“Take photos of the man and of the employee and post them on Instagram and Facebook.
Then buy your coffee elsewhere.”
Retweet.
Not so;
Nussenzweig vs DiCorcia, 2006
Street photography has a First Amendment “out”. For now, unless someone wins a case the other way.
Its an interesting area of controversy, but street photography is still legal and a very active thing in the US. Check it out.
So glad to be a "deplorable" in fly-over country.
I'll suffer my lack of "cultural enrichment". d;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.