Photographer Sued By Subject

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://claytoncubitt.com/blogs/usedfuture/2005/07/philip-lorca-dicorcia-sued.html' target='_blank'>http://claytoncubitt.com/blogs/usedfuture/2005/07/philip-lorca-dicorcia-sued.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"DiCorcia rigged strobe lights to scaffolding and trained his lens on an "X" he taped to the sidewalk. From 20 feet away, he took shots of Nussenzweig and thousands of other unsuspecting subjects. Later that year, diCorcia exhibited this image under the title "#13" at a Pace Wildenstein gallery show called "Heads" in Chelsea. The photographer said multiple prints of Nussenzweig's picture sold for about $20,000 each. The picture also was published in "Heads," a book that sold several thousand copies, diCorcia said. Now Nussenzweig, a retired diamond merchant from New Jersey, is snapping back at diCorcia — and at the right of photographers to secretly grab pictures on the street and sell them — by suing him, Pace Wildenstein, publisher Pace/MacGill and unnamed distributors and sellers of the image and the book."</i><br /><br />While I go around snapping pictures of all kinds of stuff, I do agree with Nussenzweig here completely. I feel that due process is required with one is publishing and selling photographs with other people's pictures. Although, none of the tabloids (and the paparazzi for the tabloids) take permission from their subjects. So I guess this case may have repercussions beyond just the "Heads".

[bluemax]

I always wondered why a photographer would have more ownership of my image than me. I hope Mr. Nussenzweig does well with his suit.

Bill B

[jdepew]

The implications of this suit being sucessful are ridiculously wide ranging. First, you can just throw out a large part of photography as art and make it essentially illegal. Then you'll realize that you can't take pictures of your favorite player at bat at a baseball game. Next you won't be able to take pictures of your own family at Disney World for fear someone in the background might be a little too litigious.

I for one vote for common sense. The guy is walking on a sidewalk and walks over top of a giant 'X' illuminated by studio strobes.. 'hrmmmmmmm. I wonder if someone is going to take my picture?' AND on the part of the photographer - 'Am I going to sell these pictures? Perhaps I should get model release forms signed as people walk away from my film trap. Perfect use for my assistant!'

But of course what do I know - I'm in a suit with Thoughts Media because they made me want to many cool things and forced me to spend all my money, oh and profitted from it through the adverstising. :wink:

Jim
LinksysInfo.org (http://www.linksysinfo.org)[/url]

[dean_shan]

I hope he loses. If he wins you will have everyone trying sue every photography who takes pictures in large cities.

[Jason Eaton]

I don't know how I feel on this one. I can't see the situation as being totally black and white with this one. So I can't really say that I agree with either side.

What is the composition of the picture? Is the man's face the primary focus? Does it take up a fair percentage of the composition?

The photographer obviously took time to set up the shot, did he post warnings to bystanders labeling his intent? Did he provide opportunity for bystanders to decline their use?

My opinion is that if he focused on a singular person with the intent to sell the likeness for profitable gain, where the composition does not have a public concern (like a news story) then the subject has certain rights afforded to them. These would be shared rights not all inclusive to one party or another.

If I took a picture of a model on her way to a competitors studio, in say a public place, would I be able to use her photo without consent in my own project?

If so, does the GAP have the write to take a picture of my wife as she steps out of the dressing room to look in the mirror for use in their catalog? Now interchange my wife for a professional model (a more realistic example).

Each a public place with the intent to make profit from the picture. So why do models get release rights but not ordinary people in public places?

[Suhit Gupta]

I would agree that this is not a black and white situation. However, in this case especially, there is a clear subject in the picture and I this is fair for subject to take offense.

Anyways, it generally raises a lot of interesting questions.

Suhit

[bluemax]

As in the photo, there are lots of shades to this issue. I guess I could have made my point more clear. I object to someone profiting by my image.

Yes, it is a public place and although I object to someone specifically taking my picture without my permission I can see where I would have little legal recourse.

Society (at least where I was brought up) is expected to give some sense of annonymity to others around them. We teach our children to not stare at strangers in public and teach them that it is not polite to listen in on another's conversation or to read over their shoulder. So why is it that there is no protection from these behaviors in the law.

Legal or not, I believe it is reasonable to expect someone to ask my permission and to compensate me if my image were to be sold to others.

Bill B