[rollei_list] Re: Rollei at the Movies

  • From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:54:42 -0400

Craig Roberts wrote:

The question is "what constitutes 'informed consent'". Yes, the subjects are aware of the fact that the image may be displayed publicly and have no qualms. However, their self images do not necessarily reflect the images others of more "typical" appearance may have of them. Is it the responsibility of the photographer and or publisher to intercede and censor the image on behalf of the subject, even if the subject is willing to have the image displayed publicly, when the exhibitor has a reasonable expectation that the subjects may be ridiculed?
In the case of the publication of a photo of a drunken partygoer or a police arrestee whose competence is temporarily suspended, I would say "no problem". However, in the cases of my subjects or some of Diane Arbus's, I simply don't know. Some people would laugh derisively at my subjects. Others would consider their images beautiful. Who is to say?


Craig


For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it is important to say. I do think that if you doubt you have informed consent, then I can understand your trepidation. If on the other hand, you do think you have informed consent, then I don't think you should demean your subjects by trying to decide their artistic sensibilities for them or act in the realm on their behalf. JMO...


Eric goldstein --- Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: