Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    mod squad gahspidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    N.Y. U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,368

    N.Y Court rules in photographers favor . . .

    There was an interesting piece of news yesterday ( Feb. 14th ) in the N.Y. Post. A lawsuit was brought up against a photographer ( Philip-Lorca diCorcia) who had taken a photo ( head shot) of an Orthodox Jew near times square without any consent, and had sold several large prints for tens of thousands of dollars at a Gallery showing in Chelsea. The exhibit was called "Heads" and featured seventeen large prints of random headshots of different people from several different countries.
    Manhattan Supreme court justice Judith Gische ruled that the headshot showing Nussenzweig, with a white beard, black hat , and black coat is art-- even though the photographer took the picture surreptitiously near times square in 2001, and sold 10 prints for thousands of dollars. ( 10 - 30 thousand per print)
    New Yorks right -to -privacy laws prohibit the use of someones likeness for commercial purposes without the persons consent. But if the likeness is deemed to be art, the commerce restrictions do not apply.
    This opens up a very large gray area to interpretation. This ruling lets me feel that if I were to take photos of people on the street, and exhibited them as a series in a gallery type setting, I would have no problems with legal issues of right to privacy. As long as it is being presented and/sold as art.
    Interesting . . . so , I may awake my "sleeping man" shot after all . . .
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails N.Y Court rules in photographers favor . . .-0505-0409x.jpg  
    please do not edit and repost my photos


    gary


  2. #2
    Hardcore...Nikon Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Newport, NC
    Posts
    4,318

    Wink Gray Area Indeed

    And an Appellate court could overturn that decision any day.

    Also, another judge in another state could rule just the opposite as NY did.

    I think I'd stick with getting a model release myself.

    My two cents.

    Interesting world we live in today...
    Nikon Samurai # 1


    http://mccabephotography.tripod.com

    http://precisionshotsphoto.tripod.com

    "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." - Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    mod squad gahspidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    N.Y. U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,368

    Re: Gray Area Indeed

    Right you are, it's all up for interpretation. Yeah, the model release is always the best thing to have ,but sometimes very difficult to obtain, and impractical. I wonder if the plaintiff will appeal . . .
    please do not edit and repost my photos


    gary


  4. #4
    Captain of the Ship Photo-John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
    Posts
    15,422

    Very Good

    Thanks for posting this. I'm going to copy it to the Business and Law forum.

    I've always operated under the belief that if someone is in public, they're fair game. That is - for artistic and editorial photography. Using someone's image for advertising is different.

    On the other hand, as Speed pointed out, a judge could change the rules by giving a favorable judgement to someone who's been photographed without permission. This is an interesting subject and one that we would do well to pay attention to.
    Photo-John

    Your reviews are the foundation of this site - Write A Review!

  5. #5
    mod squad gahspidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    N.Y. U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,368

    Re: Very Good

    John, I also feel that in public, anyone is fair game for an artistic, editorial, documentative type of photo, so long as it is not advertising, or used in a degrading way or bad taste.I can't imagine that, say, Walker Evans had Model releases on all his great trains /street shots. It is just unrealistic. however, back in his day lawsuits were not so common as they are today. It is something we need to be concerned with, but I am more and more feeling that I'm not going to let it get in the way of a shot.
    please do not edit and repost my photos


    gary


  6. #6
    Senior Member swmdrayfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Mi
    Posts
    2,474

    Re: N.Y Court rules in photographers favor . . .

    Gary---we're just living in a litigous society now. People will sue at the drop of a hat. Give 'em a reason----any reason.

    I read about this a few months ago (about the suit, not the verdict), and I can't believe anyone would pay $10,000+ for a head shot of an ordinary, everyday person. Am I missing something? Ya think this would fall under our "How far would you go...?" thread?
    John

  7. #7
    mod squad gahspidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    N.Y. U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,368

    Re: N.Y Court rules in photographers favor . . .

    John, I too was shocked at the amount these prints had sold for. He sold 10 of this particuliar subject and one of them sold for as much as $30,000. The print was roughly 3 ft x 4ft. . It seems to me that there are some very wealthy persons that will not only be attracted to a piece of work, but to it's price as well. An incredibly high price makes it all that more special, and gives them some sort of bragging rights.
    please do not edit and repost my photos


    gary


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •