Shots from some old rocks

[cmi]

...The point of this is that it is a whole roll of film, unprocessed.  The point is that the best photographs are not selected, the point of this is to look at one person and the way that they work. ...

... but what is the point of posting a picture I know is good?  You going to tell me I'm great?  Thanks, I know    Equally, if I post something I see as second rate, you are going to tell me I'm rubbish - and I've still not learnt anything.  It is for this reason that up until now, I've never posted work in the C&C section - I'm not a beginner who needs the validation of being told I'm good - and equally, I can spot a rubbish photo an bin it without second thought.

Its some days ago but an answer to this keeps staying in my head, also it touches the last discussions wich took place here. So I risk bringing it up again

You ask why would one choose to post here. I think its not about if someone tells me Im great or bad, it not about the ego-boost I get, or get not. (As nice as praise is of course.)

For me its about, do I have a question wich I want to have answered? Then I post here. Or if I know the photo IS good but want to know why people like or dislike it. If I only want praise its the wrong place.

So, its not about people telling me what they think about my images, its about me: Do I have a question?

[dalethorn]

For anyone who wants to do street photography and might be confused by Dale's last post: You often need to take what you read in Wikipedia with at least a grain of salt. In this case, it's not that Wikipedia is wrong, it's that Wikipedia covers a lot of ground and doesn't specifically deal with the laws of the United States. For correct information on the laws of the United States you need to consult an attorney familiar with the laws of the United States. Bert Krages is an attorney familiar with U.S. law and is also an avid photographer. His downloadable summary is reliable. Dale's random musings are not.

Dale doesn't do random musings - Dale is very knowledgable about law. Russ is very authoritarian in this and many other matters, but many intelligent people would rather think for themselves than have Russ do the thinking for them. The reason why U.S. law is what it is is because of the Freemason (enlightened) founders and their rebellion against the authoritarian elite who worshipped the King and his erroneous interpretation of the law.

Edit: add that "argumentum ad verecundiam" is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

[JeffKohn]

Sorry Dale, but you're wrong on the model release issue as far as the US goes, and the vague wording on Wikipedia doesn't prove anything. A model release is only required for commercial use here, not for art or editorial use. If the Krages PDF isn't sufficient to convince you, you might want to take a look at this article. You can also search for past entries on the PhotoAttorney blog, and I believe the PPA or one of those similar organizations has some information published on their website, but I don't feel like digging it up myself right now. The right to use a person's likeness in a work of art has been held up multiple times in US courts, including a high-profile case in NYC a couple years ago.

[dalethorn]

Sorry Dale, but you're wrong on the model release issue as far as the US goes, and the vague wording on Wikipedia doesn't prove anything. A model release is only required for commercial use here, not for art or editorial use. If the Krages PDF isn't sufficient to convince you, you might want to take a look at this article. You can also search for past entries on the PhotoAttorney blog, and I believe the PPA or one of those similar organizations has some information published on their website, but I don't feel like digging it up myself right now. The right to use a person's likeness in a work of art has been held up multiple times in US courts, including a high-profile case in NYC a couple years ago.

The way you said 'wrong' above is an absolute. As in "absolutely wrong." I would only suggest that that's extremely unlikely in U.S. law. What Wiki was saying is that there are precedents on both sides, depending on circumstances, as seen by judges and/or juries.  I really don't think I have to look further into this, to see whether it's "always 100 percent OK no exceptions" to display a photo of someone as you stated.  Unless you're convinced beyond any doubt that it's "always 100 percent OK no exceptions." And I'm not being sarcastic - I'm looking for that particular qualification before I spend the time on it.