Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 4, 2005, 2:38 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
suze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,338
Default

Philip-Lorca diCorcia is being sued by aman that he photographed in 2001, as part of his "Heads"series:

http://claytoncubitt.com/blogs/usedf...rcia-sued.html

David Barzelay's blog presents some interesting points of view on this as well: http://www.barzelay.net/archives/200...grapher_ta.php

I'll be keeping an eye on the news for the outcome of the court case. Any comments from forum members?
suze is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 4, 2005, 3:09 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Charlie46227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 295
Default

IMO, the photographer should have gotten a release, plain and simple. He was stupid for not doing so and will probably pay big time. (just my 2c) Having said that, I think it is silly to need to get a release when a person is knowingly getting his picture taken, but that was not the case here. Bottom line... always get a release if there is ANY chance you stand to gain down the road. I'm so poor I don't have to worry about such things :|
Charlie46227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 3:48 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

Thisis surelyan ancientdilemma. Ex: circa 40,000 BC; Cave artist is banned from the cave for painting a picture of one of the cave dwellers on the cave wall without that dwellers consent. Fast forward to Walker Evans sitting on a subway car in the 1940's snapping away atclueless fellow travellers with the camera hidden in his shirt. And on to get-a-life papparzi shooting too-much-life celebs at their umpteenth wedding.

The bottom line for me is I don't want restrictions on what I photographor where I display them. I'm not a professional and have no desires in that direction. Once money gets involved, freedom is out the window.


fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 5:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Suze

Thanks for posting this - i wasn't aware that you could get sued for doing a wee bit of photography. Interesting read...

:O:O

Harj




HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 6:13 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
CCWKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 221
Default

I don't see any difference between this and a model. If you plan to profit (or even if you don't plan) you should get a release from your subjects and/or be prepaired to pay. It happens a lot. I seem to recall a guy's image/likeness being used on a soup can a while back. The picture was taken some 10-15 years back. He sued and won!

If you take/use photos for profit, you should be prepared to compensate your models for the use of their image--Either up front or in court.
CCWKen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 7:08 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

Ken

I remember that particular case and agreed with the decision of the court and you make a very valid comparison with models.

Harj

:?

HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 7:45 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 51
Default

I picked up photograpyh as a hobby in the late 60's. From that time on it was always the case that 'public photos' were just that...public. But I haven't kept up with the legal situation and I don't know the specifics of this suit.

john
jmgiv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2005, 8:21 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
CCWKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 221
Default

Yep John, things have changed a lot. Court decisions vary depending on the facts. If you were to get a shot of Madona on a beach and sold it to one of the "rags", you'd probably get away with it. If you put the same picture in a calendar and sold copies, I bet you'd end up in court. I don't know the specifics of what rights/laws are used; I just know that it's best to be safe than sorry. If you benifit in commerce from someone's image, you should get a release.


CCWKen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 3:18 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

I agree with Fred in principal and he put it well, I have taken quite a few candid shots over the years, it depends on intent and what you wan't to do with the images, just use common sense.
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 7:21 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
pappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 827
Default

What about the man's picture on the Instant Coffee maker jar cant remeber the name , i think Tasters Choice.He sued and won for the use of his pic from 15-20 years ago.
pappy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.