Photographer Makes Sunbathers Angry

[Pherdinand]

I tell you what i think about the DiCorcia case.
Is it okay for someone to earn hundreds of thousands from selling photos? Is it okay to sell ONE print for TWENTY THOUSAND bucks? Nope, i dopn't think so, no matter how good that print is.
Is it okay to sue and ask for "compensation" for something you have never did? Is it okay to forbid someone out on the street taking your photo without your consent? Nope it's not okay.

Briefly, what i mean: DiCorcia was greedy and tried to get rich from those photos. He could have been glad with much less than he got for them. In the same time, the old person, the "model" was also too greedy, knowing that DiCorcia got big bucks on the photos, he tries to get his share. . He is a retired diamond dealer or stg like that. Is he starving? DOes he REALLY need that money? NOpe I don't think so. But still: Why not? sueing is the fashion nowadays.

 

[Pherdinand]

And then, the way the 'news' was presented: mentioning he's a jewish blah blah. So what???It seems they try to make a 'political correctness' case out of it, or such. Why? Why is it important he's a jew? What if he was gipsy? What if he was dutch? Why isn't his shoesize or number of grandchildren listed, instead of his nationality?

 

[Allen Gilman]

Pherdinand, I can see where you're coming from but I think the whole interesting point about this has nothing to do with the money. The project itself throws a strange light on what we take for granted - issues of public/private. It's inspiring if it can get you to another visual fact (a new fact as Winogrand would put it). The whole public/private debate is a slippery slope and I think DiCorcia just upped the ante in the game so to speak.

Don't confuse the photographer with the work. The money isn't what's important in all of this. On the other hand, DiCorcia's work itself is quite intelligent and clever.

 

[titrisol]

That's the problem when lawyers take control of the world.

Pherdinand, I can see where you're coming from but I think the whole interesting point about this has nothing to do with the money. The project itself throws a strange light on what we take for granted - issues of public/private. It's inspiring if it can get you to another visual fact (a new fact as Winogrand would put it). The whole public/private debate is a slippery slope and I think DiCorcia just upped the ante in the game so to speak.

Don't confuse the photographer with the work. The money isn't what's important in all of this. On the other hand, DiCorcia's work itself is quite intelligent and clever.

 

[egpj]

I tell you what i think about the DiCorcia case.
Is it okay for someone to earn hundreds of thousands from selling photos? Is it okay to sell ONE print for TWENTY THOUSAND bucks? Nope, i dopn't think so, no matter how good that print is.
Is it okay to sue and ask for "compensation" for something you have never did? Is it okay to forbid someone out on the street taking your photo without your consent? Nope it's not okay.

Briefly, what i mean: DiCorcia was greedy and tried to get rich from those photos. He could have been glad with much less than he got for them. In the same time, the old person, the "model" was also too greedy, knowing that DiCorcia got big bucks on the photos, he tries to get his share. . He is a retired diamond dealer or stg like that. Is he starving? DOes he REALLY need that money? NOpe I don't think so. But still: Why not? sueing is the fashion nowadays.

I really do not understand your opinion about the photographer being greedy making a "obscene" amount of money for his work. He is charging what he can get for the photos. I for one will not begrudge him that ability. If I could sell my shots then damn right I would. And if I could sell them for what he charges then why not! I think that if someone started offering you big money for your shots you might just "weaken" and accept. 🙄

As for the guy who sued, I think he is a schmuck but with our court system being what it is right now he might just win. Because the courts are full of schmucks just like him.

 

[Kat]

I have always been more inclined to take pictures of landscapes and inanimate objects, partly coz they don't move (all the time in the world to compose), and partly because they won't object. Now that I'm getting into RFs, I want to explore street photography and venture into people. So I'm wondering, what is your SOP for taking pics of people in public? Do you ask their permission or just start shooting? Do you do the same whether you are taking distant pics and closeup ones?

 

[egpj]

Most of the time I ask the person if I can take their picture. Something where the person is far away from me then I do not bother asking them anything. Say like past 20 meters or so. You know where they are not recognizable. Most of the portrait type shots I have in my gallery I struck up a conversation with that person ahead of time. I have been turned down for a portrait as well.

 

[RML]

I really do not understand your opinion about the photographer being greedy making a "obscene" amount of money for his work. He is charging what he can get for the photos. I for one will not begrudge him that ability. If I could sell my shots then damn right I would. And if I could sell them for what he charges then why not! I think that if someone started offering you big money for your shots you might just "weaken" and accept. 🙄

As for the guy who sued, I think he is a schmuck but with our court system being what it is right now he might just win. Because the courts are full of schmucks just like him.

For commercial uses one needs permission. Corca used the photos for commercial use. Ergo, he needed permission. Had he not made nig nucks from the photos or left them in his drawer, no one probably would have sued him for compensations. But he is asking big bucks, and getting it, so someone sues him. Seems pretty clear-cut situation to me. We'll see what arguments defendant and plaintiff have and what judge and jury make of them.

 

[Allen Gilman]

RML, I think you're missing the subtleties here. Since it's so clear, could you tell us what exactly was commercial about it? For example, what would make his photos commercial and Cartier-Bresson's non-commercial? The use of lighting? What about other photogs' use of flash? Where do you draw the distinction at? I'm genuinely curious here...

 

[RML]

RML, I think you're missing the subtleties here. Since it's so clear, could you tell us what exactly was commercial about it? For example, what would make his photos commercial and Cartier-Bresson's non-commercial? The use of lighting? What about other photogs' use of flash? Where do you draw the distinction at? I'm genuinely curious here...

Commercial in the sense that he made a book of the shots and sold it for a profit. That sounds pretty commercial to me.
Whatever HCB did or didn't do is not the point here. HCB wasn't sued, not in the US nor France. Corca is. Now let the man come up with some good arguments how his commercial use of these shots justify not having a model release. He willingly and knowingly is walking the borders of the law here. Now the courts will have to decide whether he stepped over the line.

We can discuss Corca's case here till death but, since neither of use is a lawyer nor a lawyer defending the case, it's a useless exercise.

 

[Allen Gilman]

"...since neither of us is a lawyer nor a lawyer defending the case, it's a useless exercise." I'll let that go even though it's a convenient response after you make your own point.

I still don't see a clear distinction about what would constitute commercial uses and non-commercial uses no matter what "sounds pretty commercial" to you.

"Now let the man come up with some good arguments how his commercial use of these shots justify not having a model release." He doesn't have to. A whole tradition of street photography sets precedent for him legally.

There are plenty of photographers who have made plenty of bucks selling books and prints of people w/out having had model releases. At some point, we're gonna have to find a different way to talk about private/public issues (rather than commercial/non-commerical) in photography without letting the dollar determine the outcome of the discussion.

 

[mattg]

You guys might like to know that you can no longer take photos on Bondi Beach here in Sydney because the local council has banned it. Apparently kids swimming carnivals are now off limits too. This has nothing to do with commercial use of course but it is part of the same problem.

 

[RML]

"...since neither of us is a lawyer nor a lawyer defending the case, it's a useless exercise." I'll let that go even though it's a convenient response after you make your own point.

My opinion is my opinion, not the ultimate truth. In Corca's case my opinion doesn't matter one yota. 🙂

I still don't see a clear distinction about what would constitute commercial uses and non-commercial uses no matter what "sounds pretty commercial" to you.

I think there're laws that make the distinction pretty clear. And for those situations where the distinction isn't so clear jurisprudence will make it so.

"Now let the man come up with some good arguments how his commercial use of these shots justify not having a model release." He doesn't have to. A whole tradition of street photography sets precedent for him legally.

It does not. This "whole tradition" hasn't been challenged in the way Corca is now. There's little jurisprudence to go by, and times and insights/views have changed. This will no doubt have an effect on the outcome of this case. We'll see where it ends. I hope there will be a balanced verdict.

There are plenty of photographers who have made plenty of bucks selling books and prints of people w/out having had model releases. At some point, we're gonna have to find a different way to talk about private/public issues (rather than commercial/non-commerical) in photography without letting the dollar determine the outcome of the discussion.

That would be nice but quite utopian. Money makes the world go round and capitalism reigns supremely. I doubt we'll ever be able to leave money out of the equation, unless we turn to a system that's more like the socialist/communist system of a different era and area.

 

[Harvey Platter]

DiCorcia's done all of us a disservice, in my opinion. There's been a steady lessening of public sympathy for photographers over the last twenty years or so. In the 'sixties and 'seventies, certainly in the UK, people were far more tolerant of photographers but the rise of the paparatzi has created quite a lot of hostility. I think this is one more symptom of that increased hostility and whether DiCorcia has to pay or not, I think we all lose.

 

[Goodyear]

RML > Commercial in the sense that he made a book of the shots and sold it for a profit.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it follows.

For example, the other day I was browsing through the World Press Photo book. Does that constitute commercial use of images in your eyes?

It's a book being sold in a shop alongside many others just like DiCorcia's work.

In the past editorial and fine art uses have been distinct from commercial, despite the fact many many photographers make (sometimes very large amounts of) money off such images. IMO, this is as it should be.

 

[RML]

RML > Commercial in the sense that he made a book of the shots and sold it for a profit.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it follows.

For example, the other day I was browsing through the World Press Photo book. Does that constitute commercial use of images in your eyes?

It's a book being sold in a shop alongside many others just like DiCorcia's work.

In the past editorial and fine art uses have been distinct from commercial, despite the fact many many photographers make (sometimes very large amounts of) money off such images. IMO, this is as it should be.

Goodyear, I realise there are many grey areas, and the WPP book IMO is a good example of it. But as long as WPP isn't sued by any of the people depicted in the published photos it's a bit immaterial. I think if WPP ever gets sued any judge and/or jury will have a hard time coming to a (balanced) decision.

Corcia's photos had AFAIK nothing to do with news gathering, so I think he may have a hard time in court.

But, as I said, I'm not the judge and jury in this case so I, too, don't know how the verdict will be. It's just my opinion based on my understanding of the case that Corcia is walking the fine line between what is and what is not commercial use and now has to justify his actions because obviously someone isn't so certain it is NOT commercial use.

 

[Nick R.]

Sorry, I disagree with those who think it's a okay to shoot anyone in public. When you go to the beach, you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's one thing to take a wide shot to give a general idea of "beach, or " vacation " but to go around taking individual shots of women or men in their swim suits is wrong. If you want those kind of shots hire a model. This has nothing to do with child endangerment. Taking these kinds of shots without people's permission is just rude.




(EDIT to say who I disagree with)

 

[Kat]

This is a really tough argument. I see the point of both sides, but to be honest, I personally don't like having my picture taken, and would mind if somebody does even when I'm in public and even if it's not for commercial use or distribution. It just kinda freaks me out that total strangers have a picture of me. That's why I don't feel comfortable taking pictures of people without asking for permission, however, asking will sometimes ruin the spontaneity of the scene or miss a good shot...Maybe we can draw a compromise, like egpj--if the subject will be recognizable or the shot is of particular people rather than a general scene, it might be safer to ask first???

 

[kiev4a]

Commercial in the sense that he made a book of the shots and sold it for a profit. That sounds pretty commercial to me.
Whatever HCB did or didn't do is not the point here. HCB wasn't sued, not in the US nor France. Corca is. Now let the man come up with some good arguments how his commercial use of these shots justify not having a model release. He willingly and knowingly is walking the borders of the law here. Now the courts will have to decide whether he stepped over the line.

We can discuss Corca's case here till death but, since neither of use is a lawyer nor a lawyer defending the case, it's a useless exercise.

I agree. If you sell a photo, or a collection of photos, it's "commercial use" and you should have releases from the subjects. Money is money whether if comes from a magazine ad or a self-published book of photographs.

 

[RML]

This is a really tough argument. I see the point of both sides, but to be honest, I personally don't like having my picture taken, and would mind if somebody does even when I'm in public and even if it's not for commercial use or distribution. It just kinda freaks me out that total strangers have a picture of me. That's why I don't feel comfortable taking pictures of people without asking for permission, however, asking will sometimes ruin the spontaneity of the scene or miss a good shot...Maybe we can draw a compromise, like egpj--if the subject will be recognizable or the shot is of particular people rather than a general scene, it might be safer to ask first???

Though I can relate to how you feel, I still think the feeling is irrational. How about all these hundreds of security cameras (private and government) that abound in nearly every city and town these days? Your mug is photographed tens if not hundreds of times each day, wherever you go. Do you know who sees these shots? What they are used for? If and when they'll ever be deleted?