lessigThree

David Noonan:

When discussing the rights of photographers, I wondered how different things today would be had the ruling changed such that people's images were their property. For instance, I doubt people would have cameras, or at least they wouldn't be as commonplace. It's possible that digital cameras may never have been invented, if there were a huge reduction in the number of people interested in such technology. After all, why would someone fund research into such a technology when only a small market wanted it? The relation to Napster here was interesting as well, and was, obviously, the author's point. I wonder if people would have responded to the banning of photographing people without their permission in the same way that people have responded to laws and lawsuits against sharing intellectual property.

Peter Quattrociocchi III In terms of not bein allowed to photograph or tape people, it is often seen in TV shows where they blur the faces of some persons. So, in a sense, there are laws against publicly viewing certain information (as I had just watched American Dad where they blurred a middle finger).