DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photographer sued for taking head shot in street..
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 16 of 16, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/01/2005 06:46:02 PM · #1
Link to a blogged news links on Philip-Lorca diCorcia, who's being sued for having taken a portrait without subject's knowledge/permission, and then exhibiting that image and including it in a book.

Message edited by author 2005-07-01 18:46:30.
 07/01/2005 06:56:59 PM · #2
not a bad idea! i like the part about setting the strobes up pointing at a x in the sidewalk, rather clever if you ask me
 07/01/2005 07:00:07 PM · #3
I don't know if the legal action has any basis. You can sue for anything but that doesn't mean you will win.
07/01/2005 07:00:37 PM · #4
Damn, better not sell that picture I took at the baseball game. Must be thousands of people in that one :P
 07/01/2005 07:09:17 PM · #5
skippy-the-non-lawyer here...

for all intents and purposes, this is all real simple:

1) you can TAKE all the pictures you want
2) you CANNOT use a picture of a person commercially without their consent
3) editorial use is not commercial use
4) a picture of a group of more than 4 people does not require consent, unless the picture is edited in such a way as to highlight a single individual

for more info, check this thread

;-)

edit...
Originally posted by ADGibson:
I don't know if the legal action has any basis. You can sue for anything but that doesn't mean you will win.

this case probably does have merit, and i wouldn't be surprised if he gets a nice settlement out of it.

Message edited by author 2005-07-01 19:10:54.
 07/01/2005 07:12:33 PM · #6
i can see there point, its one thing to be photographed in crowd and put ina newspaper, but to take headshots like that and sell them seems a little off, surely we have to get consent for these sort of shots?

07/01/2005 07:15:04 PM · #7
Originally posted by cbonsall:
i can see there point, its one thing to be photographed in crowd and put ina newspaper, but to take headshots like that and sell them seems a little off, surely we have to get consent for these sort of shots?

see my post ;-)
 07/01/2005 08:39:51 PM · #8
interesting article, but fun as well--i got a bit of entertainment *and* some laughs out of this part:

OK, I just like saying Philip-Lorca diCorcia. Say it ten times, slowly. Now try it with an outrageous accent. Now try it while raising your arm like a Shakespearean actor. Fun, right?

;)
 07/02/2005 08:53:35 AM · #9
I take candid street shots and they are on my webpage, but I've never set up such elaborate lighting at one location.
I don't intend on public showing at galleries and I would never sell them or publish them in a book without a consent.
Speaking as a regular person, I'd be upset as well if a photog took my portrait and started to make books and prints to sell without my consent and without paying me, since I'm not a public figure.
 07/02/2005 11:22:44 AM · #10
Interesting also is why the gallery of the photographer's show and publisher of his book didn't inquire as to whether or not model releases were obtained. I would think that both would have substantial legal resources in this regard and would have dealt many times with situations such as this. They are being sued as well.

Message edited by author 2005-07-02 11:26:16.
 07/02/2005 12:27:29 PM · #11
Originally posted by yido:
I take candid street shots and they are on my webpage, but I've never set up such elaborate lighting at one location.
I don't intend on public showing at galleries and I would never sell them or publish them in a book without a consent.

Posting it to a publically-accessible web page is really no different than hanging a print in a gallery or publishing a book. Unless your website is devoted to spreading breaking news or an "educational" site like this one, posting photos to a website probably constitutes "commercial use" under the copyright law.
 07/02/2005 01:17:57 PM · #12
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Posting it to a publically-accessible web page is really no different than hanging a print in a gallery or publishing a book. Unless your website is devoted to spreading breaking news or an "educational" site like this one, posting photos to a website probably constitutes "commercial use" under the copyright law.


I think that under the law the difference is huge unless you are selling prints of the image on the website. The images in the gallery and the books were for sale.
 07/02/2005 01:58:14 PM · #13
Originally posted by nsbca7:

I think that under the law the difference is huge unless you are selling prints of the image on the website. The images in the gallery and the books were for sale.


I tend to agree with this. A web-site that has no commercial purpose is different and can probably be defended under the Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Expression protections. It could also be argued to be 'editorial' - we're all entitled to make our comments on the world in any way we want - we don't need to be called "The New York Times" to have editorial rights. In any case, when there is no commercial gain, the value of going after it in the courts is limited. When, like the web site in question, the prints were selling for $20,000 - then there are deep pockets that are worth tapping!
 07/02/2005 01:59:01 PM · #14
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Posting it to a publically-accessible web page is really no different than hanging a print in a gallery or publishing a book. Unless your website is devoted to spreading breaking news or an "educational" site like this one, posting photos to a website probably constitutes "commercial use" under the copyright law.


I think that under the law the difference is huge unless you are selling prints of the image on the website. The images in the gallery and the books were for sale.

martin's correct, here. if your website was a subscription-based site, where subscribers were paying to see pictures, the images presented in the paid-access area would fall under commercial use. or, if one were offering the image for sale, that would definitely be commercial use.

however, most states allow photographers to display their works as examples without that being considered commercial use. this includes displaying an image in the window of your main street gallery, as well as featuring it on your website.

on the other hand, it would be considered commercial use if a photographer launched an ad campaign using the same image.
 07/02/2005 02:46:23 PM · #15
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Posting it to a publically-accessible web page is really no different than hanging a print in a gallery or publishing a book. Unless your website is devoted to spreading breaking news or an "educational" site like this one, posting photos to a website probably constitutes "commercial use" under the copyright law.


I think that under the law the difference is huge unless you are selling prints of the image on the website. The images in the gallery and the books were for sale.

If its a purely personal website, it would probably fall under the guidelines for personal or educational use.

As soon as you charge a subscription fee, accept paid advertising, and or publicize the site in an attempt to drive additional traffic there I think you start to cross the line into make a commercial use of the image, even if you're not selling prints. It is certainly not a black and white situation; the specific circumstances of each case would be highly relevant.

On a related note: You can buy a print of almost any photo from the archives of the NY Times, the SF Chronicle, etc. While the newspapers originally had the right to publish these as editorial content, wouldn't the selling of individual prints (other than for scholarly research) be a "commercial use" for which they'd need a model release? Do they generally get releases?
 07/02/2005 03:14:05 PM · #16
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As soon as you charge a subscription fee, accept paid advertising, and or publicize the site in an attempt to drive additional traffic there I think you start to cross the line into make a commercial use of the image, even if you're not selling prints. It is certainly not a black and white situation; the specific circumstances of each case would be highly relevant.

as i mentioned before, in most states, you can display your work, even on a commercial site, without having releases.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
On a related note: You can buy a print of almost any photo from the archives of the NY Times, the SF Chronicle, etc. While the newspapers originally had the right to publish these as editorial content, wouldn't the selling of individual prints (other than for scholarly research) be a "commercial use" for which they'd need a model release? Do they generally get releases?

newspapers do not get releases, but they do have to get accurate captioning information--otherwise, butts get chewed whenever retractions and corrections have to be printed. as for selling images, they typically have a price for personal use, a price for commercial use, and a separate price for political use--depending on how sophisticated the paper is. typically, you have to state your use up front.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 01:36:12 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 01:36:12 PM EDT.