Philip-Lorca DiCorcia: the returning issue of candids

marlof

Did anyone of you catch the story about Philip-Lorca DiCorcia being sued for publishing and selling a picture taken as a candid on the NY streets? You can find it on several blogs, and the linked one has a nice set of comments following the story. Somewhere down there you'll also find a link to Dan Heller's page on Model Releases. Just for your information, for those who like to follow discussions like this.

edit: I was completely at a loss if this belongs in Street, in People or in Wide Angle. If a mod will find this inappropriate here, I'm sure it'll be moved to a more fitting place.

ian408

Trying to decide if WA or News & Events. WA it is.

Very interesting topic indeed.

Ian

photocat

ian408 wrote:

Trying to decide if WA or News & Events. WA it is.

Very interesting topic indeed.

Ian

Agree here, I read halfway the discussion, and it is not clear who wins.
Having said that, I find it ridiculous that so much notes are going up everywhere to forbid photography. I am currently in discussion with the National Trust in England because they own a lot of property, we pay a 5 to 7 pound note to go in, and you can not take photographs. But they do sell post cards at the exit...
I have heard the most far sought arguments, from ensurance to theft to what else is loose explanations why we can not shoot our simple picture for our holiday memory book.
The last time I read Amateur photographer (I missed a couple of weeks) the discussion was on because the London City Counsel is going (or has by now?) put up signs that forbid photography on Trafalgar Square...
Ridiculous, paranoia and what else...

wxwax

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. The artist makes a good point that he's at the end of a long line of photographers who have done essentially the same thing. Cartier-Bresson, anyone?

And it's hard to see how the man has been harmed, humiliated etc. as he claims.

Still, given the current political climate, it's easy to believe that the photographer will not fare well.

Harryb

This is one of the few times that I come down on the side opposite the photographer.

It is one thing to take a candid w/o your subject's permission. That's ok with me because if you ask permission the "moment you are trying to capture is lost. However to take the shot and then use it commercially is a whole other story.

I don't think its OK to profit from such a shot w/o the subject's permission. Also the subject here is an orthodox Jew who lives with very severe restictions (by my non-religious viewpoint anyhow). The context of how his picture is being used could be very disturbing to him. I used to be in charge of my union's yearly lobbying trip where we sent busloads of our members down to DC. We had a large orthodox contigent and I had to arrange special food for them and to block off the video screens on their section of the buses because the movies that were shown were objectionable to their standards.

wxwax

Haaaarrrrry? Just exactly what kind of movies were you guys watching?




Seriously, I see your point. I have to say that if someone took my image and made a lot of money off of it, I'd want some of that dough. I've always felt that the "fine art" exception to getting a release was a little bit suspect, because fine art is usually made to be sold. So it's a form of commercial endeavor.

ian408

wxwax wrote:

Seriously, I see your point. I have to say that if someone took my image and made a lot of money off of it, I'd want some of that dough. I've always felt that the "fine art" exception to getting a release was a little bit suspect, because fine art is usually made to be sold. So it's a form of commercial endeavor.

I think the commercial endeavor is the crux of the argument for me.

Ian