New Bruce Gilden Video

foggie

foggie

the foggiest
Local time
3:54 PM
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
135
When he took the shot of the womans "diamonds"... "Do you also take pictures of your daughters 'diamonds' too?" "Sure, and her rubies too!". What a classic moment.
 
Great stuff and i must say that his style has some real value, he really gets something powerful out of these people. However, i was ashamed at the attitude he had in that documentary of him in New York, i have no problems with him getting in people's faces, but don't just walk away after doing it. This is not the case in this documentary, this allows his style and the true value of his images to come out as opposed to having the viewer focused on his manners.
 
samoksner said:
However, i was ashamed at the attitude he had in that documentary of him in New York, i have no problems with him getting in people's faces, but don't just walk away after doing it.
Click to expand...

he is not the average dude shooting and running - there are people who work with him to sign the release with those exact people he goes face to face. And why are you ashamed?

Mike
 
eyeograph said:
really? you mean photos are published by Magnum without prior consent of the "model". :bang:
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I think the vast majority of documentary photos are used without a model release. There was a recent high-profile court case in New York about this sort of thing.
 
eyeograph said:
really? you mean photos are published by Magnum without prior consent of the "model". :bang:
Click to expand...

You only need consent if the photo is used for advertising purposes or if you are implying that the person depicted is endorsing XYZ etc.

It's still a free country. Sort of.
 
I had the opportunity to ask about Bruce Gilden's true personality last week in a short conversation with the director of exhibits for Magnum.

She said he was "incredibly funny, incredibly nice and did not take himself too seriously".
 
Andrew Sowerby said:
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I think the vast majority of documentary photos are used without a model release. There was a recent high-profile court case in New York about this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I get asked about this all the time. Why on earth do most people think you need a model release to publish or sell an image? If that was really true, how would the paparazzi make a living?? A just think about the TOS of sites such as flickr. You'd need to get a model release to put every image up on the site, since that is also a form of publishing.
 
dfoo said:
When he took the shot of the womans "diamonds"... "Do you also take pictures of your daughters 'diamonds' too?" "Sure, and her rubies too!". What a classic moment.
Click to expand...
absolutely precious!


Bob Michaels said:
I had the opportunity to ask about Bruce Gilden's true personality last week in a short conversation with the director of exhibits for Magnum.

She said he was "incredibly funny, incredibly nice and did not take himself too seriously".
Click to expand...
cool! i happen to adore him -- his style and his photos.

**********************************************

does anybody know what lens he typically uses?
 
Does anyone know the name of that New York case? I believe it involved a photographer who took a picture of a person in Times Square. The subject complained on privacy and religious grounds about the photograph being displayed in a gallery (I think). Does that sound familiar to anyone else?

Sorry for the further hijack and thanks to the OP for the link. Very interesting and entertaining!
 
You need a model release if your work is used for advertising. For 'artistic' endevours like documentary photography, I don't think you need any such thing.

And yeah, that exchange with the lady and her friends/family about her "decolage" was awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom