You do realize you failed to disagree with me at all, right? I can distribute something without selling or licensing it; it's called putting up my own website.

Okay, you did disagree with me regarding the model's level of involvement in the sale or licensing of the photo. And you're wrong; as a photographer, I hold a fair hand of cards cards. The model can decide who I *can* not sell or license to, and I can decide who I *will* not; if the model had all they say, I'd have to sell or license the photo to whomever the model dictated and that is, simply, not the case.

Okay and now I *am* going to natter on. Since you can't see how your approach failed, let me point it out. This is an effective response when someone admits they were wrong and this is an appropriate way to present an opposing viewpoint, what you wrote was neither of those things.

While you did "[invite me] to consider whether [my] position would change if [I] knew one of those victims"; you also, immediately before that, managed to insinuate that I didn't give this any thought, rather than accepting the possibility that I was working off of incorrect or incomplete information, as was the case, and took the liberty of making another bold assumption about me; I'll leave it to you to figure out what that assumption was and why you were wrong to do so.

Stating that you disagree with me and providing your opinion, as you did in the first paragraph of your initial reply to me, was spot-on. Everything you've wrote after that was inflammatory, and I think you know that. Stopping at the end of your first paragraph would have garnered a more positive response; simply, me stating that I had actually been presented additional information and an alternative viewpoint on the subject, and had already reconsidered my position. I would have had nothing to call out out on and, therefore, would not have done so.

At least one of us can admit they were wrong. Who's the one nattering on and behaving dickishly? Seriously, rather than politely suggest I reconsider my position, taking into consideration that I may have been coming from a position of ignorance, rather than malice, you chose to take a stab at me, and you're attempting to do so.

I've admitted everything you're trying to point out about how I was wrong in my postings on this topic. I've learned, I've grown, and I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. That's more than you can say.

Go ahead, have the last word. You know you want it. But if you choose to take another stab at me, don't expect me to let it stand.

It's not a matter of me being too delicate, it's a matter of me being willing and able to call it as I see it. Did I say I was hurt by the attack? Nope.

Actually, yes it is. The photographer owns the copyright to his or her work. When it comes to selling or licensing the photo, the model has some say, but distribution rights lie with the photographer in all cases.

Other comments I've posted on this topic have received much less confrontational replies, attacking my position, rather than myself personally, or the replying poster's perceived notion of how much though I've given the topic. It's probably good that I read those replies several hours before yours, as they managed to expand my view of the issue (and at least one of those received a response indicating such, also several hours before you posted this), whereas your approach only managed to make me not like you, personally.

Just sayin'... it doesn't matter how right you think you are, when you have to resort to attacking the other person, you're only showing that you can't find an attackable flaw in their position. Defensively, I would say that's quite sad, since I, personally, no longer hold that position, having seen several flaws in it, myself, by now.

Single as in not a group, not single as in not in a relationship...

And here I am with my tail between my legs. Don't bother wasting your time replying to point out my own misunderstanding of the law; I've just made myself quite aware of this (ironically, as I no longer hold that misunderstanding).

Oh, I read it. And you're correct, libel is a subset of defamation, not all defamation must be libelous, but all libel must be defamatory. The information needn't even be provided out of context or in a false light, as you say; it need only be contrary to one's generally known character. There is no argument to be had, here; instead of just reading posts on Slashdot, go read up on the actual law.

You're confusing libel with defamation. Libel must be false, or believed by the person spreading it to be false. You can defame someone's character by making public some private piece of information about them, which is 100% completely factually accurate, which the general population of people who know that person would find to be out of character for them.

Character is how people perceive you, it is not fact. If your "good" character is based on lies and a negative truth comes out and destroys that perception of you, your character has been defamed.

And by consenting to being photographed, they're waiving some of those rights. Like the right to tell the photographer who they can share the photograph with.

It is not reasonable to expect everyone around you to be decent human beings. It should be, and ideally it would be, I know that's a world I'd like to live in. But that's not the world you and I live in; we live in reality, where we know there are people out there, a large number of them, who are not, and are probably not capable of being, decent human beings; therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that of them.

You misunderstand the mechanics of the situation. By consenting to being photographed or recorded, you've already given the copyright owner (the photographer or videographer) the right to distribute their work, which is theirs; they own it, the law is clear on this point. In this case, a release form serves only as proof of your consent. Incidentally, release forms weren't initially used for this purpose (until people started claiming they had never consented to things they most certainly had), but were (and still are) used to secure that consent after a recording (for example, a news crew may interview several dozen people on the street and record each interview -- usually they state that the interview will not be aired without your consent, which puts that ball squarely in your court --, but only have the 3 or 4 people whose interviews they want to put on the air actually bother signing a release, and they would do so after the fact).

That's why it's called a release; you're releasing your consent after the fact. It's still called a release when it's done in advance, because it's the same form, but the simple act of consenting to the recording is enough, under the law; a release at that point is just ass-covering.

There are so many shades of gray here, there isn't enough time before the heat death of the universe to explain them all. Images of actual rape and actual murder actually as they're actually happening actually are illegal. The one exception, at least for rape (who's gonna charge the guy who was just unwittingly starred in a snuff file, anyway), is for the victim; he or she can and should do everything possible to record the act in order to use it as evidence after the fact.

Once you start talking about stealing, it can break down two ways; robbery, or burglary. Let's talk about robbery, because it involves physical interaction between the perpetrator and the victim; now you're filming an assault. That's also illegal.

Of course, with the recording of these acts, the law actually considers intent. That's why you don't get nailed for security camera footage, or for recording an event for evidence or to report it in the news.

There's a bit more nuance to it than I've described in this post, but I'm sure you can start developing the rest on your own.

That's reporting that it happened, not making it happen for the purpose of recording it. That's where the difference comes in. Find a way to graphically depict the sexual abuse of a child without filming or photographing the act in progress and I'll support your argument; until then, perhaps you need to learn to see shades of gray, there are more than 2.