Originally posted by Steve.Ledger A bunch of SJW nutters with nothing better to do than find something to cause trouble about.
Think it through - if remotely captured images don't belong to the photographer, then neither do most of NASAs or all security camera/CCTV imagery.
It's just a crazy claim.
yes, but a very expensive crazy claim. Quote from article, "(Last year he said the campaign had already cost him £10,000 in lost income.) ", That does not Include the legal fees that he may incur. And the fact that he is a known animal-rights activists himself, and that he has worked with the organization in the past, made little difference.
in my opinion, regardless of the outcome, The group has lost at least two supporters. The photographer in question, and me. It is one thing to go after someone who's killing endangered species for fun or profit, or industries that are polluting the land, water and air. That I agree with. It is a different story When you go after people who are trying to preserve nature through pictures. taking pictures remotely, does little to disturb nature. It is also the best way for scientists to gather data on animals without disturbing their habits. you are also jeopardizing a vital industry. Some countries have a choice, use up their surviving resources in order to survive, or utilize a vital resource that is nature. Creating a natural tourist attraction. Allowing photographers to come in and take pictures of nature at its best. If you attack that industry you leave these countries with little choice. They need an income. And it's better to provide an income by preserving nature, There's an old saying, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. and that's exactly what they're doing.