There are certain beliefs that forbid us from photographing everything, which would inevitably prevent us from doing so. Having personally traversed an African marketplace, I was captivated by a display adorned with spices and hues that were distinctly distinct from one another. It was there that I conceived the notion of preserving these hues for all time. As I remove my camera and glance at the mother manning the stall to inquire whether I may photograph her, I observe a blatant denial in her countenance—one that is not hostile in nature but rather imbued with a sense of apprehension—a straightforward denial.
Why did this categorical rejection appear to me in numerous places? What causes them to be afraid? Permit their souls to be appropriated. In a sense, taking a photograph is emulating God through the act of creating something beautiful; thereafter, God will compel us to imbue this image with life by imbuing it with a soul. The thing that individuals fear the most is having their spirits taken from them.
Furthermore, legal restrictions prevent us from photographing every physical object.
Permission to photograph an individual or object is required, as stated previously. For the publication of these photographs, documented permission or consent is necessary. When it comes to photographing a minor, the situation becomes slightly more complex. The photographer in question must obtain parental approval and signature on a document indicating which medium will be used for the publication and the dates of publication will be included. Photographers have the freedom to capture any subject matter they deem appropriate for a "Celebrity" (athletes, performers, actors, etc.), provided that it remains within the bounds of their vocation. Photographing the same individual in public or within one's residence constitutes an infringement upon the privacy of others. Additionally, the legislation is applicable in specific locations, including army facilities, industrial complexes, nuclear power plants, airports, SNCF buildings, and short-secure spaces. Photographers are required to obtain prior permission. Photographic usage of historic or renowned monuments by tourists does not carry any punitive consequences. However, in the case of a business or organization desiring to utilize the image for "commercial purposes," a request for "commercial use" must be submitted.
The third reason why we were unable to photograph everything is that it would have been inappropriate to do so for certain objects with a shocking appearance to be photographed. The statement "We cannot photograph everything for moral reasons" could be phrased more explicitly.
Such as a severe accident or a destitute person succumbing to hypothermia while wandering the streets.
It is widely acknowledged that capturing images of distressing situations such as war or homicide requires the expertise of a war photographer. It is an extremely difficult task that demands composure and extreme caution. These individuals exist to expose and bring to our attention the heinous acts that occur in our world, in order to provoke a response.
Attempting to return from conflict zones with as many photographs as possible in order to share them with us is their line of work. Perhaps we would still have a good understanding of the situation even if the photographs were not available, but the fact that we can almost experience for a tenth of a thousandth of a second what they must be feeling, and see the misfortunes of others so closely, motivates individuals to begin marching, protesting, and organizing. Conversely, an individual passing by while strolling through the street might perceive it as amusing to capture a person starving to death on a sidewalk. Such behavior could be classified as voyeurism, the term applied to the inclination to surveil another person's private life unknowingly and derive pleasure from doing so. However, this is a matter of personal preference; each individual is entitled to their own viewpoint, and every photographer has their own limitations; while certain individuals believe that photography has no boundaries, others rely on conscience and regard. (Since the question at hand pertains to YOUR opinion, it is superfluous to assert that others are not permitted to share it; a simple expression of "personally, I think" will suffice.)
The fourth factor that bolsters my progress is that it is more artistic in nature. This is known as intellectual law. All personal rights to intellectual creations constitute intellectual property. Literary and artistic property are encompassed within its scope, thereby including intellectual works. Three major and distinct components comprise this right: copyright, neighboring rights, and copyright. Copyright comprises the author's attributions to his creations and consists of the following two components: The moral right entails entrusting the author with exclusive responsibility for the work and all subsequent decisions; property rights consist of the right to receive all income generated by the work; and rights to property that automatically revert to the public domain fifty years after the author's death. Copyright is a concept that bears resemblance to copyright but possesses an entirely different essence; in civil law nations (e.g., France and Belgium), copyright is intricately connected to a profound moral right, whereas in the Commonwealth of Nations and the United States, it has a more pragmatic connotation and a considerably more limited moral right. This subtle distinction is what sets copyright apart. Comparable to copyright, neighboring rights pertain to performers as well as the performance and implementation of the work. These rights prohibit the photography of numerous subjects and are the impediments that forbid us from entering galleries and museums.
Consistently, my fifth and final reason supports the notion that it is impossible to photograph every aspect. Despite the numerous benefits associated with restricting the right to photograph, there are instances where it is employed to impede freedoms of thought, expression, and the press. Undoubtedly, a primary course of action pursued by totalitarian regimes or dictators is the proscription of journalistic activities, including photography. Image specialists band together in organizations such as "Reporter Without Borders" to defend against this. Since the French Revolution, technological advancements and photography have become integral components of the means of freedom of expression and press, which have been in place since then
In conclusion, it is safe to assert that photography does have its boundaries, as it is unfeasible to capture every aspect for a variety of legal and rational reasons. However, this does not provide an adequate justification for the restrictions imposed on photography, as it serves as a medium for self-expression and is subject to unlawful and discriminatory restrictions. We may attempt to capture images of everything that is not in our personal or financial interest.
@Gerard Van Weyenbergh
Comments