Photographer Makes Sunbathers Angry

[Allen Gilman]

"But as long as WPP isn't sued by any of the people depicted in the published photos it's a bit immaterial." Nah, not immaterial. We don't judge whether a photographer is within their rights or not by whether they are sued or not (nor by how much money they've made off of their photographs). I don't think the WPP is in any danger of ever being sued for the work in their books nor would it be difficult to defend it. You'd have to prosecute a whole system of media, capitalism, and values to do that.

"Corcia's photos had AFAIK nothing to do with news gathering, so I think he may have a hard time in court." They are documents just as Walker Evans' photos on the subway were documents. DiCorcia's case doesn't exactly hinge on whether it's news photography or not.

"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." Perhaps this is true of your world - not mine.

"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."

It would be closer to the truth to say that that "someone" is looking to put some weight in his wallet.

 

[bmattock]

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?

Correct. Most people never look up when they're out and about in public. If they did, they'd see all the cameras looking back at them. Even ATM machines are snapping passers by.

These have proved to be useful to the police in solving crimes - the ATM camera that took a photo of the OKC bombers, they say that there are a lot of cameras that may have filmed the UK bombers yesterday.

But privacy in public is an illusion. The courts in the USA say you're not entitled to it, and evidence seems to indicate it is silly to expect it.

That's not to say that it makes people happy or that it makes them feel comfortable. It simply is what it is. The courts here in the US say - if you don't want your picture taken - stay home.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Goodyear]

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.

But the definiton of commercial use is nothing to do with money.

Commercial use is, for example, advertising - 'commercial' meaning 'to do with business'. (As opposed to art, editorial, reportage, whatever.)

 

[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.

 

[Kat]

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?

U got a good point there. Fortunately for me, we don't have a lot of security cameras in my technologically-challenged country yet, hehe.