N.Y Court rules in photographers favor . . .

[gahspidy]

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 . . .

[Speed]

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...

[gahspidy]

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 . . .

[Photo-John]

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.

[Asylum Steve]

But if the likeness is deemed to be art, the commerce restrictions do not apply...

Yeah, a great topic to discuss. I think this could easily fit in the Art Forum as well.

Personally, I'm very encouraged by this decision. I feel that's the way things should be. There is so much great street art that depicts random people in random situations, many of which one could not possibly be expected to get signed releases.

Some of the most profound photographers of all time have memorable shots of odd and interesting people in all sorts of compelling human conditions taken everywhere possible around the globe.

Just think how difficult it would be to capture an emotional or thought-provoking moment if all your legal bases had to constantly be covered...