Victory - Street Photography for Art is LEGAL !

Peter_Yardley · #1 03-19-2006, 10:09 AM

Philip Lorca Di Corcia has won out in the bogus claim against him for his street photography.

good news for anyone concerned with the genuine art of photography:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/ar...mp;oref=slogin

BillyDixon · #2 03-20-2006, 01:40 PM

This is a short sighted victory. If you are a battered spouce or in witness protection. It would not be a good thing to happen to see your face in some gallery or on the cover of some magazine. What would happen if a picture of a cop working under cover saw his or her face with his family at the time he was actively undercover. Then tell me who won.

MartinOjaste · #3 03-21-2006, 07:57 PM

and think about the runaway kids, the alimony skippers, the lost relatives and the criminals that might be caught.

Marie_Hughes · #4 03-21-2006, 08:42 PM

I think if someone objects to their photograph being taken for religious reasons, the human thing to do is to stop displaying the photograph. If it was me, I wouldn't necessarily go to any effort to get any prints back that I sold, but at least I'd remove the photograph from the collection and not sell any more so that the person in question wouldn't get their nose rubbed in the fact that their deeply held beliefs have been violated.

Asher_Kelman · #5 03-21-2006, 09:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think if someone objects to their photograph being taken for religious reasons, the human thing to do is to stop displaying the photograph. If it was me, I wouldn't necessarily go to any effort to get any prints back that I sold, but at least I'd remove the photograph from the collection and not sell any more so that the person in question wouldn't get their nose rubbed in the fact that their deeply held beliefs have been violated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would then commend you as a fine person! Part of the cloak of glory a photographer wears, since the earlies times is respect for what is photographed. We do not disturb the landscape, pollute the rivers, rob anyone or demean.

It is so tough. I am a robber! I take pictures of people with no money, sleeping in a doorway, card or rags over them. Should we get the face too? Should one pay them afterwards and then risk humiliating them further. One has therefore to use good judgment and kindness.

I would certainly withdraw such a print that someone was offended by.

If one is so talented, one's body of work wil not be harmed. No matter what the law is, street photography is hunting. We hunt, the unsuspecting subject is the victim. We mean no actual harm. However, if one comes to learn that harm has occurred, we should in decency, use the other pictures for which there is no offence.

If one pays in advance, then you can stand on your artistic rights. In street photography, we try "to get away with it" and rarely we are cought. In this instance, having won the case, I would cease sale, otherwise, photographer has demeaned himself, to become a common brigand, taking just because they have the power.

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

DavidHarpe · #6 03-22-2006, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what the law is, street photography is hunting. We hunt, the unsuspecting subject is the victim.

[/ QUOTE ]

In any situation if there is truly a "victim" as you dramatically put it, then it is a simple matter to prove it in court and extract damages. This ruling doesn't make it okay to defame, misrepresent or otherwise embarass people. If you take a photo of a scruffy person, hang it in a gallery and call the photo "Homeless Man #1", it would be advisable to make sure the person is really homeless and not just on the back end of an all nighter. Otherwise you might end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

Asher_Kelman · #7 03-22-2006, 12:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No matter what the law is, street photography is hunting. We hunt, the unsuspecting subject is the victim.

[/ QUOTE ]

In any situation if there is truly a "victim" as you dramatically put it, then it is a simple matter to prove it in court and extract damages. This ruling doesn't make it okay to defame, misrepresent or otherwise embarass people. If you take a photo of a scruffy person, hang it in a gallery and call the photo "Homeless Man #1", it would be advisable to make sure the person is really homeless and not just on the back end of an all nighter. Otherwise you might end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

Perhaps you misunderstand Marie's comment and my extention of it.

We are not disputing rights of a photographer or redress of provable damages. These are merely legal issues, the outcome of which is highly tied to case law and not necessarily to ethics and respect, moral attitudes and other values which define cultures and how we value each others worth.

Plain and simple, 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.

It is a societal trade-off to have great art in balance with some loss of peoples privacy. We all do it and get away with it. however, if someone objects vehemently, Marie, others and I would take pause and not just publish it regardless. If we belived publication wouold cause great anguish, we would not publish, unless it was complicated by being part of a news story for which other values might come into play to make a final decision.

Ethics is what we decide to do when we have the power to decide for ourselves.

Law is a far different system and depends more on votes, jury picking, smart lawyers and luck!

I'm not saying we have to be righteous all the time. I just feel a successful person has the capability of not keeping all of his catch.

One can, without loss, let something go every so often.

I like the fact that our rights to photograph in the streets is butressed by the high court ruling.

With that in our pockets, we also see opportunities for discretion and kindness.

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