Victory - Street Photography for Art is LEGAL !

[Peter_Yardley]

I agree with most of these sentiments, but come on, 'hunter' is not the right word, now is it?
hunters usually kill what they are tracking...

yes, we all have moral balance and judgement calls to make, and I would agree with some of the examples given above, but, from what I understand this man's "religious beliefs" may not be all they seem and certainly he has brought way more attention to his image than ever would have it he'd just let it go. The photograph was gone, sold out, the book published and the work kind of 'over'.

it may be that the smell of possible $ has more to do in such cases than any useful legal reason, and so its good to have the basic premise re-inforced here. where indeed would we be without Walker Evans subway photos, or Garry Winogrands fabulous work of the 1960's/70's - and no "The Americans" either?

You still cant use peoples images for commercial use - this is artistic exhibiting and related publication only that is being discussed here. nothing else.

[Guy_Warrington]

hello,

i am going to have to agree with asher on this one. sadly, law and ethics are often very far a part. while i am glad that u.s. photographers have won an artistic victory, it does little for the profession when one disregards the feelings of the subject.

as sebastiao salgado once said:

"There can be no room for doubt. You don’t go to take anything from anybody or to exploit them. You don’t “take” pictures, you make pictures; you make them well and use them to communicate, to help the people and the situation."

[Marie_Hughes]

[ QUOTE ]
from what I understand this man's "religious beliefs" may not be all they seem

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get that from? Are there other articles on this issue that haven't been published here? I'd be interested in reading them, if you have any links.

I want to be clear that I wouldn't necessarily respond to *any* objection by saying "oh, you don't like what I've done, I'll stop doing it." But in this case, I think a religious objection is a pretty strong one, particularly as the artist isn't really going to suffer by removing this one image from the collection.

Marie

[Asher_Kelman]

Again, Marie, you have the right sensibilities to be a people photographer!

Hunters are recognised on this planet by have eyes in front that track prey. The victims, by contrast, do not.

The camera gives us that extra weapon to track and capture an image of any person without their knowledge. They are defenseless to my lens.

With this power, goes my responsibility to not harm what I cam working with, be it a mountain stream or a vagobond.

Almost always, there is no harm. I merely record reflected light that would have been lost. Capturing transcience is what this is about. It creates magic.

Religious feelings are treasured by many peoples even more than their own lives. Making a graven image is considered idolatory by certain fundamentalists. My own father insisted on breaking something off a sculpture so it should not be perfect and thus unsuitable for idolatory. Laugh as one might, such strongly held cultural idioms are as real to them as the beauty of light filtered through trees at sunset on a a family having a picnic, or the value of a Van Gogh.

I am sure that the man in question really believed that he had been humiliated by having his face trapped in electronic flash and reproduced in posters, as "Heads". Frankly, I would feel demeaned too, although jealous of the artist for having done such a good job!

We as the dominant animal on this planet, need to have respect for it and ourselves.

We learn as children to have joy, appreciate laughter, trust, friendship and generosity only to awake in a much harder unkind world, where actions can be justified by oened "rights" over others.

Today, every commercial company has rights to any tax, magazine rental, purchases, travel and other information about all of us. We can't become just like the rest of the commercial world grabbing whatever we can of everyone else, no matter what the consequences.

I try to give people breaks. I can drive faster than most people, but, I try to let people in the traffic. I often destroy my image if there is the slightest indication that the subject, actor, model, passer by doesn't like it. I do this because I have the power to choose and think I'm good enough to make more and even better pictures.

Taking someone's image is a very invasive activity. If one can't have respect, I wish people would find another job, no matter how talented they are. We have no shortage of talent, just of graciousness.

So, Marie, if there was only one cameras left in the world, I'd sure share it with you!

Asher [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Tommy_Metthe]

Those who are complaining about this desicion should look at how things would have been had the ruling gone the other way. This is a good thing for editorial photographers and photojournalists everywhere.
While some may or may not agree with Di Corcia's actions this ruling is a good decision overall and should be applauded by all.

[Asher_Kelman]

Tommy,

I laud the legal decison and am grateful for it. I like being empowered to shoot pictures as I choose or to my whim.

However, with that power comes the questions of ethics.

Ethics does not apply to deer or to lions, but it does to humans with power.

Ethics is our developed ability to distinuish between what we have the power to do and what we should do.

It is that simple.

I for one am certain this religious man felt humiliated and objectified and abused by become a captured "head" in an exhibiton.

Let me let you in to the cultural ancestory of this.

The Scythian nomadic tribes, who roamed over large areas of Europe for thousands of years had no towns or settled places. They did however introduce horse-riding and had captured Greek goldsmiths making the finest gold work for them.

After a raid, there was a sign over the chiefs tent. "no heads, no booty!". Scalps were softened and used as napkins. Bridal gifts were made of the scalps. Men head collections of skulls.

Arrays of heads on scalps or sending back emissaries heads in a casket has been a standard of intimidation. Salome's "Give me the head of Yochanan" is iconic of the head collection paradign that is embedded in out cultural psyche at an almost reptillian level.

The decapitation of hostages heads in the current "war on terror" is a recapitualtion of this tool of intimidation.

Collecting real heads or pictures of them and calling them "heads", removes the personal identity of the subjects. These are not "things", they are humans, each with a name and an identity!

We did this a colonialists, showing news pictures of "Africans sleeping in shantytown", or "bodies of greek terrorists" etc, whereas, British killed or wounded were gven names, stories and respect. They were not just "heads".

Enough of the bad stuff, now to beauty. There's no doubt that the project in question was remarkable and moving.

However, we can have that beauty and also dignity. I for one would have had assistants and get consent, offer free pictures, add a small bio and a payment. The incremental cost is small and then we would have as much meaning as a viewer wanted. They could ignore what was written and just enjoy fine photography, or have some idea of the humanity of the people in the wonderful images.

This way, we all have choices, the photographer, the subjects and the viewer.

That, to me at least, makes us the most civil and civilized.

Everyone has to decide how to use their power. My way is my particular solution to the consequences of having power.

Asher [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Will_Perlis]

"... if you photograph a man lying in the gutter or walking quietly along the banks of the Seine, you are using that person for your own purpose, no different from any other hunter, just the kind of prey you seek."

However, most any other kind of hunter changes the prey in some way, usually by digestion. I've done the photographic kind and the kind involving high-velocity projectiles, and IMX there's a considerable difference even if some of the stalking and shooting techniques are much the same.

We can get into the definition of "exploitation" but I wonder about that one too when the supposedly exploited isn't affected in any way.