One cheerful Sunday afternoon, you get a brilliant idea for a new shoot you want to do, and you hire a beautiful model to come and pose for them. She arrives, and you pay her, by her own set fees (by the hour or by a preset, static charge, it doesn’t matter. She makes the rules.) for her services.

Once the shoot is done, the money paid, you thank your model for her valuable time and she, with a smile, walks out of your studio and back into that brilliant Sunday afternoon. You retreat to your little artist corner, process and print the photographs, and begin arranging your project in the way most aesthetically pleasing to your personal preference.

Later that week you present your series at a gallery. Art enthusiasts from around the country show up to the gallery, and one particular enthusiast likes your work. He offers you a handsome amount for the series–more than enough to pay the bills for the month–and you graciously accept. He walks away with your prints in hand, and all parties are content. He got a beautiful set of images for his living room decor, and you get to buy groceries.

However, a little kink in the system manages to break your good mood. The model (whom you have already paid for her services) discovers that the generous enthusiast paid good money for the pictures, and she’s unhappy. It is her image presented in those pictures, she argues, and she deserves a cut of the profits. She takes you to court, and despite your most desperate pleas, her case stands above yours. Now you not only wasted all of the money (and then some) hiring a lawyer to defend yourself, but you didn’t even win. You must resort to selling off your photography equipment, renting out your studio, and in the end you manage to snag a job at Wal-Mart working in the electronics department. You lose credibility not only as an artist, but as a photographer in general.

This is how things work today. Though maybe a little melodramatic (hopefully you, as the hypothetical photographer, would have been able to get a better job than one at Wal-Mart), the question I wish to pose stands the same.

Does a person have a right to his or her image?

Consider the scenario again. The model came into the photographer’s studio. The photographer used his own camera to take pictures of her. He used his own equipment to process and print the pictures. The very series was his idea (though this becomes a skewed line when we look at intellectual property rights–which will be discussed at tonight’s meeting!). Overall, all the model had to do was pose, and he paid her, on her terms, for every second of her time that he consumed with his project.

However, simply because it was her face in the pictures, the model claimed a right to any profit made from them. Because she stood in front of a camera for a couple of hours and let that photographer snap his shutter down to capture her likeness into a data file in his SD memory card, she believed that they belonged, at least in part, to her.

In photography the situation is tricky. For anything media related there needn’t be any model consent as to where the pictures are used. For example, the paparazzi can snap pictures of any celebrity they so choose and use those images in any “newsworthy” way possible without reaping any repercussion. The reasoning behind this is first amendment infringement. However, if a photographer wishes to use his images for any commercial use, whether it be in advertising, stock photography, or any creative outlet that could result in a sale, he must get a signed contract with the model, getting her permission to use her image for monetary gain. Usually these contracts (called “model releases”) will deem exactly where the pictures are being used and for what purpose. Sometimes they will outline how much (if any) of the profits made from any sale of the picture will be granted to the model. Though the legal elements may make sense, I want to know, is it justified?

The model owns her face, true. It is part of her body, her personal property. So the photographer (and anyone, at that matter) doesn’t have the right to take her physical face and sell it for his own gain. However, after the picture has been taken, and the likeness of her face is processed and printed (with the photographer’s own equipment), does she hold any claim to it? Does she have the right to tell the photographer where he is and is not allowed to use the work he slaved over (trust me–processing pictures is no simple task. Color photography is kicking my ass), while the only thing she contributed was her time (which he paid her for, on her terms, I remind you), and the likeness of her face?

It is similar to asking if a person can own his or her reputation. I don’t believe one can. With the photography scenario it poses a similar concept. Once the shutter has been released, the light going through the lens and onto the sensor and collecting as data on that memory card, which will then be read on a computer to display an image of the likeness of the model, she holds no claim over it. She was not paying the photographer for the pictures–he was paying her. She has about as much claim on those pictures as a carpenter does on a house he has been paid to build. Whatever he chooses to do with those images is out of her control. Whether he sells them as wonderful pieces of art, draws mustaches on them in permanent marker, or decides to run down the street and throw them, by the hundreds, around him like confetti, she can do absolutely nothing.

Sadly, that isn’t how it works.

As it stands, a model has nearly more of a right to a photographer’s work than the photographer himself has. Her possession of her “image” is greater than his possession of his physical work and labor to make that work.

I’m not sure about you, but something there doesn’t quite click with me.

© Mary Hunton for UNR Students for Liberty, 2010.
Permalink | 3 comments

For our second Campus Discussion we will be discussing capital punishment. Is it ever okay to kill a human being? Should taxes be used to put people to death, even though many of those taxed are morally opposed to such actions? We’re going to make an effort to keep this one on topic, focused, and organized for the open discussion of this touchy topic.

Thursday, October 1
7:00PM – 8:30PM
JCSU Room 423

© Travis Hagen for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | One comment

During our first ever Campus Discussion we will be discussing Jack Bauer. Is he a patriot… or terrorist?  Are the actions Jack Bauer takes in Fox’s 24 justified?  To what extent should law and order be disregarded if the ends justify the means?

Thursday, September 17, 2009
7:00PM – 8:30PM
JCSU Room 423

© Travis Hagen for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | No comment

There are many different questions that can pose this problem, though not all on a political level. Premarital sex, divorce, polygamy, abortion, and gay marriage, to name a few. In the mind of a devout Catholic, completely and utterly dedicated to their faith, the answer to the question, “is any of this okay?” would be a simple, concise, “No.” However, I, and many others, find ourselves thinking, “Wait. What’s the BFD?”

Morality and liberty are two very different mindsets and codes, and they should be taken as such. For example, on a moral level I am against abortion, and yet I am pro-choice. Why? Just because I would never get an abortion does not mean that you shouldn’t have the right to if you so choose. The same goes for many political controversies that I find myself on the more “liberal” side of. Gay marriage? I am not gay, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have the same rights straight couples do. I do not smoke pot, but that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal. I wouldn’t really walk around naked (sorry, guys!), but if I DID want to, I think I should be able to. It is the same on a moral level: my morals are personal. You have no right to push your morals on me, and I have no right to push mine upon you.

For me the solution to this “moral dilemma” was simple. My faith and my morals are on a completely different level than my political outlook, and holding them in complete disregard to one another did nothing to discredit the merit to either of them. Religion, as with most things, is a choice, and the moral code that goes along with that is not something that can be forced upon any individual. If something does not infringe upon the rights of others, even if morally it is considered “evil” by your faith, what right do we have? Is the fact that we consider something “sinister” enough for us to condemn it without taking into consideration that it may not actually be violating another’s rights?

I don’t think so. You have your morals and I have mine: let’s keep it that way.

© Mary Hunton for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | 10 comments

The human body is a wonderful thing, and it’s something that all of us happen to have (go figure, eh?). However, concealing the human form, hiding it from sight, has been in practice ever since the beginning of the written human history back with the Egyptians, and far before that. Whether you believe we hide the human form due to the modesty and shame that Adam and Eve acquired upon being cast from Eden or due to some other, evolutionary mechanism, my question here is this: why is it such a big deal?

Public indecency laws exist in every state with different penalties and severities, but the fact still remains that, for some reason, we seem to feel that the government needs to step in to indicate when, where, and under what circumstances it is okay for someone to choose not to wear clothing. Wearing clothes is a personal choice. We all have different tastes, but those tastes can’t legitimatize wearing nothing at all. I don’t understand this. The human figure is natural and normal, why is there such a big fuss about it?

Most of our problems with public nudity are cultural. Within the American culture, the naked human body is seen as something obscene and strictly sexual. The only time many of us are exposed to seeing a completely nude body other than our own is within the confines of a rated R movie or trashy magazine, and this only further identifies it into that negative stereotype. Due to this, the naked figure is torn to pieces and further demonized, strengthening the social taboo.

However, half-clad women are all right on the cover of Cosmopolitan and Allure as long as they are sexy celebrities, and the un-sexy ones are allowed for the sake of gossip on People. From what I can see, our views on nudity and sexuality are skewed. Risqué and sensual, half-naked men and women are completely acceptable, whereas being naked in a totally normal, everyday, non-lewd fashion is still prohibited by law.

Simply walking around nude is perfectly acceptable. As far as I’m concerned it infringes upon no one’s rights, and if someone so chooses not to wear clothes I see absolutely no problem with that. The mere act of being naked is entirely normal and natural, and it is not something the government should tell us we can or cannot do. I chose to put clothing on this morning, but if I hadn’t who am I really hurting? The people who are lucky enough to see my beautiful, naked form? I think not.

I know what you’re thinking. “Not everyone is as stunningly good-looking as you are, Mary! This logic is ridiculous!” But I have to disagree. It isn’t about whether or not people look good naked, it’s about whether or not they have the right to choose to be, and I believe they do.

But it still stands: is the fact (and yes, sadly, it is a fact) that it could offend people enough to condemn it? I think not. No matter what anyone does, we cannot remove every ounce of offensive material from the world. Have you ever driven down the highway and seen a billboard hanging high that says, “Jesus saves?” That right there could be considered offensive material, because I certainly have never seen anything preaching about Buddha, Muhammad, or Satan up on those boards. What about the Montana Meth Project? Not everyone appreciates being exposed to everything they see every day, and yet we let it slip through. Why should the naked body be any different?

Of course, there are things that really would not be okay publically. Sexual conduct, for example, but merely walking around without clothes on is far from that. There is a very big difference between being inappropriate and being, well, naked.

Yet there are less “moral” reasons that speak against public nudity, but none of these are completely justified either. Sanitation is the biggest issue I’ve run across. Sexually Transmitted Infections are the major worry, but it works much the same way as any other sickness. If you are infected, it is your responsibility to take care of yourself. What do you do when you have the flu? You certainly don’t go about and infect the whole world, do you? You get yourself to a doctor and make yourself healthy again. There are ways to prevent spreading illness, with or without clothing.

But then there are the STIs you can’t ever get rid of, such as HIV, HPV, and herpes. What do we do about those? Viruses actually don’t live long outside of the human body, so HIV, HPV, and herpes wouldn’t be a problem. The only way to contract many of these diseases is through intercourse, needle sharing, or any other situation where bodily fluid is directly exchanged or skin-to-skin contact is made, and if left stagnant on non-human surfaces they will die and become harmless.

There’s more than that, though. Safety could very well be an issue, as well, but not a big enough issue to demand its illegalization. Walking around naked could, theoretically, increase the chance of one getting attacked, whether verbally or physically, and potentially raped (as my sister and roommate pointed out), but again this is not necessarily true. The way we dress already dictates how certain people treat us sometimes. Being naked is as much as a lifestyle as dressing in any stereotypical fashion. If I were to wear the hijab I would be instantly classified and, potentially, judged based on that.

As for rape, I’m sorry, but I doubt that someone would randomly pick a woman up in broad daylight if she’s not strolling down some questionable neighborhood. Unless she is waltzing around town alone at midnight in her birthday suit, which isn’t a smart decision whether or not she is wearing clothing, this chance is minimal. I do not believe that the rape rate would rise simply because some women would make the conscious decision not to wear clothes.

Sexual promiscuity is also questionable. Would the fact that there are people walking around without clothing on make the society a more sexually rich environment? I don’t believe so. Think of it this way: just because being naked would be legal, we must take into consideration the human condition. How many people, in reality, would make that choice? I highly doubt that there would be enough nude people walking around to promote such a thing. Just legalizing it would not mean that everyone would choose it. I would be willing to bet that less than ten percent of the population would actually do so. However, even if that number was as high as fifty percent, would it really be a problem?

There are many situations where the vast majority of the population is naked. Nude beaches, clubs, and resorts are common in some places. Within these societies, there is no increase in sexual promiscuity, diseases, or anything of the sort. Nothing that we worry about with public nudity in our society actually comes to life within these institutions. If places where everyone is naked aren’t any worse than places where no one is, why is there such a fear of mixing the two?

The point still stands that my body is mine to do with what I will. There is nothing wrong with nakedness, and the government doesn’t need to step in and tell me what I can and cannot do. If I get to choose the kind of clothing I wear, why can I not simply choose not to wear any at all?

© Mary Hunton for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | 4 comments

I offer this thought experiment for your consideration.

A lady has been pregnant for four months. She planned to get pregnant with her loving husband who he has been nothing but supportive. However, recently she has become depressed. She has thought long and hard about it and she has decided that she would like to kill herself. She knows if she kills herself the baby will not survive. Is she allowed to go through with it?

I believe this thought experiment highlights a dilemma for us libertarians. We believe the idea that the “right to life” is congruent with the “right to death.” That is, if one is allowed to do with their life what they wish, then ending it is as justifiable a measure as any other. (Now, there is some debate as to whether this is entirely true, but, for most of us, we would say that a person has a right to kill themself.)

So, is the mother allowed to take her life knowing that she will take the life of another (we are, for the sake of argument, holding that life begins at the very moment sperm touches egg)? One obvious answer is no, she hasn’t that right. It would be comparable to saying a suicide bomber is justified in detonating in a marketplace. Suicide is ok, murder is not.

The rebuttal, however, is: well, what right do any of us have to force the mother to live? Can we say, justifiably, that we may violate the right to life of one person in order to uphold the right to life of another? I do not believe we can in this case. We cannot agree to this because what it requires is that a third party (who is not in danger of someone violating their right to life and who the two parties concerned have not agreed to let arbitrate the dispute) deciding whose life is more important. Clearly allowing this third party to decide is a violation of both the mother’s and the fetus’s right to life.

What if the mother “evicts” the fetus before she kills herself. She tells her husband to take her to the hospital where the doctors will do everything in their power to save the life of the unborn child. Being only four months old, however, the child has little chance of surviving without the mother’s womb. Is this justified? May she now kill herself?

I think she may. If she does everything in her power to let the child live and yet (due to the inabilities of modern medical techniques or what have you) the child dies, I do not think she could be held culpable for murder any more than a poor mother would for letting her child die by not being able to afford vaccinations. Thus, simply by “evicting” the fetus, the mother is not responsible for murder, even if she knows the child may die.

And I believe this stems from the fact that the “right to life” is simply a form of the “right to property.” Consider a life without a body, without any material property at all: to what extent could this be called a life? If you are religious you may believe that there exists a soul and perhaps that soul has no material property and that may exist, yes—I can grant you that. But, then, in what sense can one “kill” a soul? Without delving into theological complexities, I think we can agree that life as it exists on earth for us right now is, at base, at least tied intractably with physical material—that is, property.

Therefore, the right to life is a facet of property rights. Well, if this is the case, then isn’t the developing fetus responsible for a greater violation of rights than the mother? Even conceding that both the mother and the fetus are violating each other’s right to life in equal proportion (once again, who’s to decide it would be unequal?), isn’t the fetus also violating the property rights of the mother? Surely the womb of a woman is hers. The mother isn’t violating the property rights of the fetus. The fetus has no “right” to live in a womb any more than I do. The fetus has a right to life, yes, but it has no right to usurp property.

If we are just chalking up who has violated the least amount of rights, it can clearly be seen that it is the mother who has done the least amount of rights violations and has had her rights violated the most. We must hold then that it is the mother who we must support in her decision as the more justified. If a pregnant lady wants to kill herself, I think she must be allowed. And if a pregnant lady is allowed to kill herself, I do not see why she cannot simply evict someone from her womb without having to resort to suicide and homicide to do it.

Or am I completely wrong?

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | 8 comments

Not only that but you must tell the government exactly what you are growing and when you are growing it. It’s not a big step to force farmers to tell the government what they’re growing (I mean, what do they have to hide?) and say it’s in the name of public health. That is why this bill is so dangerous…it’s coming in under the radar.

The bill leans heavily towards destroying a blossoming organic market (though it never explicitly says so) in favor of more industrial methods. Namely, the only people that can really afford to cooperate with this bill are the larger farms that have the time and money to implement all these changes.

Linn Cohen-Cole over at OpEdNews puts it very succinctly:

The bill is monstrous on level after level – the power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed banking, the prison terms and confiscatory fines for farmers, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals, the easements on their property to allow for warrantless government entry, the stripping away of their property rights, the imposition by the filthy, greedy industrial side of anti-farming international “industrial” standards to independent farms – the only part of our food system that still works, the planned elimination of farmers through all these means.

This minor step towards nationalizing farming (the government knowing everything about all farms everywhere) is just another one down that road to serfdom. Literally the government is tying people to their land. I do not know what else to call it. And as the footsteps fade away, and we walk down that road, we can do nothing but weep for our lost freedoms.

One nice thing about the bill–I guess–is that “Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.”

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2009.
Permalink | No comment

It is, in fact, a violation of the First Amendment.

To force a doctor to say “that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” is not only unconstitutional and immoral, but wrong in just about every sense of the word.

It is, in fact, a violation of a doctor’s right to practice medicine.

If a doctor does not believe this to be true, if he does not believe that removing a fertilized embryo from a woman is not the terminiation of life of a “living human being” then he cannot be forced to say so. Even if he did believe this to be true, that abotion = murder, a law cannot compell him to say so to a patient. The government has no right to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.

It is, in fact, a violation of the right for consenting adults to partake in a capitalistic act.

If patients wanted to hear that abortion was murder, they would go to doctors who believed so and said so and those doctors who did not believe this to be true and did not tell their patients would have less patients, thus less customers, and thus less of the market. Thus the population of doctors would be slowly but surely replaced by those that believed abortion is killing rather than the those that did not. And all of this would be accomplished without the intervention of the State.

It is, in fact, up to the patients and the doctors to decide what they want to discuss, not the State, nor any other third party.

© Barry Belmont for UNR Students for Liberty, 2008.
Permalink | 4 comments