The AI thread

[Alan Klein]

Lawyers aren’t witnesses to facts. Defense lawyers try to allow some facts to get into evidence, and they try to hide or challenge others. But if they are a witness to facts, the only person they can represent is themselves. Therefore the only lie they can state (in their argument) is one that has been introduced into evidence by a witness.

Prosecutors are further obligated to represent the whole set of facts, and withholding facts is an ethical breach that can get them in trouble. They frequently do not uphold those standards, but that’s a separate issue.

They do, of course, try to represent their set of facts as favorably to their side as possible. That’s what juries decide.

Juries often get it wrong, but not as often as judges do, it seems to me.

But a photograph will be able to withstand challenge only if the chain of control and the subsequent chain of evidence is provable. That had been true for a very long time and is even more true as manipulation becomes easier. That it can be fact at all comes from the indexical relationship between subject and photo. But we don’t get truth from a photo. We do sometimes get facts.

Rick “facts are true, but truth isn’t just fact” Denney

In what way do judges get it wrong more often than juries?

[BrianShaw]

In what way do judges get it wrong more often than juries?

The implications made most likely have absolutely nothing to do with photography.

[Joseph Kashi]

Not to go off-topic, but lawyers try to manipulate juries all the time, introducing misleading or off-topic evidence, omit key facts or evidence or make arguments to confuse the matter at heart. And I do not think lawyers are under any obligation to tell the truth.

That's not the case - intentional or reckless misrepresentation is clearly unethical and punishable in virtually all US jurisdictions.

In my 46 years of law practice, admittedly in Alaska which has traditionally had a high standard of practice and judges appointed on merit my observation is that the very substantial majority of lawyers with whom I deal are honest and above-board. I'm not sure about some other jurisdictions.

[Tin Can]

Back ON topic please

Nothing about MY photography will change

I have all I need to carry on regardless

I may live long enough to actually BE

A BLIND Photographer!

forever inside my DARK ROOM

I think I can, I think TIN CAN








CAN CAN

[Peter De Smidt]

We don't know what's going to become of us....Well, other than at some point we won't be here. Buddhists (and Stoics) have a good few of this: stop getting upset when the world changes. Otherwise, you'll cause yourself unnecessary suffering.

[Pieter]

That's not the case - intentional or reckless misrepresentation is clearly unethical and punishable in virtually all US jurisdictions.

In my 46 years of law practice, admittedly in Alaska which has traditionally had a high standard of practice and judges appointed on merit my observation is that the very substantial majority of lawyers with whom I deal are honest and above-board. I'm not sure about some other jurisdictions.

I am not a lawyer, nor can I claim any great knowledge of law. But here is an interesting quote that came up in a search, and proved to be the what I observed when I served on a jury:

"Lawyers must be honest, but they don’t have to be truthful. Honesty and truthfulness are not the same thing. Being honest means not telling lies. Being truthful means actively making known all the full truth of a matter. Lawyers must be honest, but they do not have to be truthful. A criminal defense lawyer, for example, in zealously defending a client, has no obligation to actively present the truth. Counsel may not deliberately mislead the court, but has no obligation to tell the defendant’s whole story."

[Dugan]

What's going to become of MY photography?
Not much is going to change...until I die, when either somebody buys my negatives at an estate sale and I become the next Vivian Maier, or it all ends up in a dumpster.
But in the meantime...FULL SPEED AHEAD!

[linhofbiker]

I hope photography will continue both film and digital.

I went to a presentation given by a local photographer at an historical society meeting. This prompted me to go thru my slides/negative and prints of the last 50 years and take them to the historical society to see if any could be donated.

To my surprise, they took maybe 5-600 of them. They were 4x5 chromes and negatives and a lot of 120 6x7 chromes and negatives. I had a few 8x10 prints of negatives I could not find. Most of the images were of architectural historical interest.

They are donated, but I do have the right to retrieve them to make prints and/or copies.

I guess I saved them from the trash pile upon my demise.

[Torquemada]

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/...ith-ryan-mills

heres where photography has gone, conclusive.

a means to get personal gratification to ones own perversions. The guys "works" of under age children are listed online in actual gallery listings as EROTIC,, right alongside that mapplethorpe guys works

[paulbarden]

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/...ith-ryan-mills

heres where photography has gone, conclusive.

a means to get personal gratification to ones own perversions. The guys "works" of under age children are listed online in actual gallery listings as EROTIC,, right alongside that mapplethorpe guys works

Someone has an axe to grind??
I would say that if you find Ryan Mill's photographs uncomfortably erotic, then you are imposing qualities on the images that aren't there, at least not for most of us. I'm guessing Sally Mann's "Immediate Family" must drive you nuts! LOL

Also gotta laugh at "that mapplethorpe guy"! I guess it's a good thing to have opinions.