Caedes

Photography

Discussion Board -> Photography -> It's OK to shoot people in the street ..

It's OK to shoot people in the street ..

.KEIFER
03/19/06 8:47 AM GMT
0∈ [?]

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
&trisbert
03/19/06 3:44 PM GMT
All photographers should read that document because we are being challenged more and more often about our right to take photos.

In Australia professional photographers need to buy a permit to take photos in a national park. If you use a tripod you are deemed to be a professional.
0∈ [?]
There are three colours, Ten digits and seven notes, its what we do with them that’s important. Ruth Ross
::Hottrockin
03/19/06 4:30 PM GMT
Is there a daily limit on the number of people we can shoot in the streets? Whadda 'bout trapping or baiting? Is a special permit needed for, say like twins? :o

Agree with Robert...this is A MUST READ!! Thanks for keepin' the candle burnin' Keifer throughout the night watch.
0∈ [?]
::philcUK
03/19/06 5:04 PM GMT
there was a program on tv here recently about this subject and the ludicrous laws that are imposed on people. in one incident a 15 year old train spotter was arrested by three transport police officers at a train station for taking photos of old trains on the sidings and held in custody using new anti terrorism laws of all things. while all this was going on, a young woman was been mugged on the opposite platform and the police made no effort to intervene and help her.
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
::J_272004
03/20/06 1:36 AM GMT
Makes you wonder doesnt it.. over here you cant take pics of kids anymore, not even your own in public, you'll get arrested as a pedophile, im not kidding about this, its happening a lot.. which I think its ridiculous that you cant take photos of the kids at the beach or sport etc..
0∈ [?]
"A sense of humour is as important to life as shock absorbers to a car.. It helps us over the bumps im life" / P.K. Shaw
+ppigeon
03/20/06 9:16 AM GMT
Thanks Keifer :-)
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
::stuffnstuff
03/27/06 9:34 PM GMT
Do you have any information on the recent court case where the photographer won over the unaware portrait subject? That would be worth hearing more about.
0∈ [?]
... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N) - Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (Yep/Nope) - Smash forehead on keyboard to continue... - All computers wait at the same speed. - Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...
.KEIFER
03/28/06 11:09 AM GMT
Street photography dodges the bullet @ DSL reports

this is where I came across the article .. there are 3 pages of comments ...

the NY Times isn't letting me in with out registering
0∈ [?]
.KingIan
03/31/06 5:08 AM GMT
very useful document, thanks a lot.
0∈ [?]
if at first you don't succeed, you're about normal.
::stuffnstuff
04/04/06 4:20 PM GMT
I registered for free, but you still have to pay to see the article. Hold on, my student access may have another way in...
0∈ [?]
Words are cheap. The biggest thing you can say is "elephant". - Charlie Chaplin
::stuffnstuff
04/04/06 4:25 PM GMT
"Copyright New York Times Company Mar 19, 2006

IN 1999 Philip-Lorca diCorcia set up his camera on a tripod in Times Square, attached strobe lights to scaffolding across the street and, in the time-honored tradition of street photography, took a random series of pictures of strangers passing under his lights. The project continued for two years, culminating in an exhibition of photographs called ''Heads'' at Pace/MacGill Gallery in Chelsea. ''Mr. diCorcia's pictures remind us, among other things, that we are each our own little universe of secrets, and vulnerable,'' Michael Kimmelman wrote, reviewing the show in The New York Times. ''Good art makes you see the world differently, at least for a while, and after seeing Mr. diCorcia's new 'Heads,' for the next few hours you won't pass another person on the street in the same absent way.'' But not everyone was impressed.

When Erno Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew and retired diamond merchant from Union City, N.J., saw his picture last year in the exhibition catalog, he called his lawyer. And then he sued Mr. diCorcia and Pace for exhibiting and publishing the portrait without permission and profiting from it financially. The suit sought an injunction to halt sales and publication of the photograph, as well as $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

The suit was dismissed last month by a New York State Supreme Court judge who said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. But to many artists, the fact that the case went so far is significant.

The practice of street photography has a long tradition in the United States, with documentary and artistic strains, in big cities and small towns. Photographers usually must obtain permission to photograph on private property -- including restaurants and hotel lobbies -- but the freedom to photograph in public has long been taken for granted. And it has had a profound impact on the history of the medium. Without it, Lee Friedlander would not have roamed the streets of New York photographing strangers, and Walker Evans would never have produced his series of subway portraits in the 194o's.

Remarkably, this was the first case to directly challenge that right. Had it succeeded, ''Subway Passenger, New York City,'' 1941, below right, along with a vast number of other famous images taken on the sly, might no longer be able to be published or sold.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Nussenzweig argued that use of the photograph interfered with his constitutional right to practice his religion, which prohibits the use of graven images.

New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they do not apply if the likeness is considered art. So Mr. diCorcia's lawyer, Lawrence Barth, of Munger, Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles, focused on the context in which the photograph appeared. ''What was at issue in this case was a type of use that hadn't been tested against First Amendment principles before -- exhibition in a gallery; sale of limited edition prints; and publication in an artist's monograph,'' he said in an e-mail message. ''We tried to sensitize the court to the broad sweep of important and now famous expression that would be chilled over the past century under the rule urged by Nussenzweig.'' Among others, he mentioned Alfred Eisenstaedt's famous image of a sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square on V-J Day in 1945, below left, when Allied forces announced the surrender of Japan.

Several previous cases were also cited in Mr. diCorcia's defense. In Hoepker v. Kruger (2002), a woman who had been photographed by Thomas Hoepker, a German photographer, sued Barbara Kruger for using the picture in a piece called ''It's a Small World Unless You Have to Clean It.'' A New York federal court judge ruled in Ms. Kruger's favor, holding that, under state law and the First Amendment, the woman's image was not used for purposes of trade, but rather in a work of art.

Also cited was a 1982 ruling in which the New York Court of Appeals sided with The New York Times in a suit brought by Clarence Arrington, whose photograph, taken without his knowledge while he was walking in the Wall Street area, appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in 1978 to illustrate an article titled ''The Black Middle Class: Making It.'' Mr. Arrington said the picture was published without his consent to represent a story he didn't agree with. The New York Court of Appeals held that The Times's First Amendment rights trumped Mr. Arrington's privacy rights.

In an affidavit submitted to the court on Mr. diCorcia's behalf, Peter Galassi, chief curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art, said Mr. diCorcia's ''Heads'' fit into a tradition of street photography well defined by artists ranging from Alfred Stieglitz and Henri Cartier-Bresson to Robert Frank and Garry Winogrand. ''If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit and sell photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might appear in those photographs,'' Mr. Galassi wrote, ''then artistic expression in the field of photography would suffer drastically. If such a ban were projected retroactively, it would rob the public of one of the most valuable traditions of our cultural inheritance.''

Neale M. Albert, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who represented Pace/MacGill, said the case surprised him: ''I have always believed that the so-called street photographers do not need releases for art purposes. In over 30 years of representing photographers, this is the first time a person has raised a complaint against one of my clients by reason of such a photograph.''

State Supreme Court Justice Judith J. Gische rejected Mr. Nussenzweig's claim that his privacy had been violated, ruling on First Amendment grounds that the possibility of such a photograph is simply the price every person must be prepared to pay for a society in which information and opinion freely flow. And she wrote in her decision that the photograph was indeed a work of art. ''Defendant diCorcia has demonstrated his general reputation as a photographic artist in the international artistic community,'' she wrote.

But she indirectly suggested that other cases might be more challenging. ''Even while recognizing art as exempted from the reach of New York's privacy laws, the problem of sorting out what may or may not legally be art remains a difficult one,'' she wrote. As for the religious claims, she said: ''Clearly, plaintiff finds the use of the photograph bearing his likeness deeply and spiritually offensive. While sensitive to plaintiff's distress, it is not redressable in the courts of civil law.''

Mr. diCorcia, whose book of photographs ''Storybook Life'' was published in 2004, said that in setting up his camera in Times Square in 1999: ''I never really questioned the legality of what I was doing. I had been told by numerous editors I had worked for that it was legal. There is no way the images could have been made with the knowledge and cooperation of the subjects. The mutual exclusivity that conflict or tension, is part of what gives the work whatever quality it has.''

Mr. Nussenzweig is appealing. Last month his lawyer Jay Goldberg told The New York Law Journal that his client ''has lost control over his own image.''

''It's a terrible invasion to me,'' Mr. Goldberg said. ''The last thing a person has is his own dignity.''

Photography professionals are watching -- and claiming equally high moral stakes. Should the case proceed, said Howard Greenberg, of Howard Greenberg Gallery in New York, ''it would be a terrible thing, a travesty to those of us who have been educated and illuminated by great street photography of the past and, hopefully, the future, too.''
[Photograph]
The man in ''Head No. 13, 2000,'' left, by Philip-Lorca diCorcia (insert) is Erno Nussenzweig. When he saw his picture in an exhibition catalog for diCorcia's ''Heads,'' he sued the photographer and his gallery. (Photo courtesy of Pace/MacGill Gallery, New York); (Photo by Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times); One of the most famous street photographs is Alfred Eisenstaedt's image of a sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square on V-J Day in 1945, right. Walker Evans took a series of pictures on the sly in the subway in the 1940's; far right, ''Subway Passenger, New York City.'' (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt, Time-Life/Getty Images); (Photo by Metropolitan Museum of Art, Walker Evans Archive)"

The Theater of the Street, The Subject of the Photograph
Philip Gefter. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 19, 2006. pg. 2.29

courtesy of

http://proquest.umi.com/

(Is this legal???)
0∈ [?]
Words are cheap. The biggest thing you can say is "elephant". - Charlie Chaplin
.KEIFER
04/04/06 5:24 PM GMT
Thanks ..

A quote from the "Alpha Centauri" game by Firaxis

`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"

`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·


from .. smac-quotes
0∈ [?]
+Samatar
04/05/06 1:05 AM GMT
Ummm... yeah, having my photograph taken is against my beliefs too. Someone give me $2 million...
0∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
::stuffnstuff
04/05/06 2:02 AM GMT
Honestly, though. I have student access to a website and I just pasted it. Even though I gave proper documentation nearly in MLA format, is it legal?
0∈ [?]
Words are cheap. The biggest thing you can say is "elephant". - Charlie Chaplin
.Dante11
04/19/06 3:24 AM GMT
I can imagine a scenaio of taking a photo of someone-not knowing they were famous.say, a model.likey I could be sued and probably would lose if my image were used for anything other than my own pleasure at home ..your thoughts???
0∈ [?]
.KEIFER
04/19/06 6:07 AM GMT
the paparazzi do it all the time .. and, it could be argued, that it's just crude profiteering .. not newsworthy journalism or art
0∈ [?]
.Dante11
04/19/06 9:35 AM GMT
does your "it" refer to mine or the paparazzi's?........no comment till then.......
0∈ [?]
.KEIFER
04/19/06 3:51 PM GMT
I'm not sure if I know what you mean ... paparazzi take photos of celebrities in public and profit from them .. not for art or journalism ... just profit in their pocket

Another example would be Stock Photography ... If I travel to India, for example, and take photos of "Religious Wise Men" on the street .. and, because they are not MY family, I release the photos to the internet with No Restrictions

Now, I'm sure I couldn't use it to launch a brand of cookies ... but "this guy" doesn't know his image is being used on a website or such
0∈ [?]
.Dante11
04/19/06 11:21 PM GMT
I was asking if you were referring to my comments ot the work of Paparazzi.you havce clarified here.........now, imaginge that some Paparazzi Do have an artistic bent and so the dilemma remains.....I would not venture to say ALL paparazzi are in for profit only-some actually, i suspect , think they are real journalists...so: the matter as to whethr one can be sued successfullty remains problematic; I still think they would lose even if proffering they were taking photos for more than profit,,,,,,,,,,,,as to man from India.....in this age, he may know someone who tells him he is now on the web............2 of us now know! What does that constitute? You used his image to make a point.not for profit, not for art, not for journalistic reasons......what a mess!
0∈ [?]

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: