although in the past i've been fascinated by the contradictions inherent in "image ethics," recently i've been interested in cases where the law and photography meet. (specifically, cases where there's disagreement about what's legal and not when making pictures.)
in part i thank boingboing for that, since they routinely post on the relative absurdity of arbitrary interpretations of the law with respect to making photos. (here's an article on a town's photography ban by-law; another on photography and terrorism; and another two on photography and security guards - the first in Union Station, the second in a mall.)
i've become more interested in image law since considering that image ethics are strongly predetermined by such laws. what's normal about photographs, in other words, is also what's legal about them; though perhaps saying what's "Legal"--that is, what's in keeping with the spirit of the law, ideological or otherwise--is more appropriate. this legality (Legality) has to do with the very private interpretation of photographs: that is, they are to be private images of one's own private property.
the distinction between what's public and what's private is paramount. in an era of terrorism, of cyberpredators, of digital piracy, and of YouTube, what's morally or ethically appropriate to make and distribute images of is increasingly contested terrain. in the absence of clear consensus emerges the strong arm of the law--contradictory and reactionary, conservative and punitive--to construct (some might say "restore") a set of imperative values defining what images can be of, how they can be acquired, and (perhaps most importantly) by whom they can be made.
while it is certainly alarming, it is also quite messy. how, for example, do state surveillance laws intersect with corporate copyright law? how does "fair use" interrelate with rights to privacy? when does using a camera become a threat to national security? at what point is it permissible for imaging technologies to intrude upon our human rights?
although i'm predominantly interested in understanding why and how average, non-professional individuals make images, i've become increasingly interested in understanding the changing nature of professional image-making. this is because although new laws and novel interpretations of existing laws affect anyone making pictures, they affect those who make a living out of imaging in particular ways. with increasing corporate consolidation limiting opportunities to make a career of image-making (see Quart's recent piece, which is only slightly tangential), more dire legal ramifications to making certain images of certain people in certain locales, and technology and standards that permit the outsourcing of image-content to private, often amateur, individuals, the ability to make a living out of image-making is clearly changing. the shift, i'd suggest, is away from public- and more toward private-interest; concerns of interest to those who believe in an independent, "free" press within democratic society.
anyway, more to come on this thread, as i work to elaborate some issues of particular concern...
