Street Photography Legal News

kshapero said:
i am a Chasidic, though not Satmar, I have never heard of this before. There is absolutely no prohibition to having one's photograph taken. Still there are people, I suppose, of any and all stripes, who do not want their picture taken. My advice to them is, "Stay at home. Keep your blinds down". As Dr Laura says, "Now go take on the day" (sic!🙂
Click to expand...

My rabbi said there are some 8000 Kararites in the US. They call themselves Jews and so do others who do not know the difference. What is their practice?

EDIT START

I found several pictures of Karaites taken by Karaites on the web. So their practice does allow photography of themselves.

EDIT END
 
Last edited:
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to question his religous authenticity. His motives perhaps, however I'd reckon it is just as likely that he went for the cash compensation as a form of punishment to the photographer and to discourage future would be documentarians of reluctant Hasidic jews.

With this particular jew though, it sounds like he felt exploited and tried to strike back as effectively as possible. I do see why he felt exploited, if we are to be honest with ourselves he WAS exploited. That said, I am glad he lost. Society has more to gain as a whole from certain forms of exploitation than it costs to the individual. Had this case gone the other way and it was ruled that personal privacy trumps the right of the photographer to document a public space then what would stop someone from suing a newspaper journalist or a TV news crew? (They also ply their trade for profit, don't they?)

The main thing I took away from this ruling was a clarification on our right to photograph indiscriminately. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between commercial photography and fine art or journalism. Just look at the end product that's being sold (or displayed, reproduced, etc., whatever). If the end product is the image itself then you're golden. But if the image is being used to sell a seperate product or service then it is an ad. It doesn't become commercial if you sell the IMAGE. But it does if the image is selling something else.

So here's my question. Let's say this artist has a blockbuster show coming up. As part of the marketing campaign for the show he runs ads featuring the famous photograph. (So now the photo of the man is being used to sell photos, or the show, or perhaps the artist himself.)Whatever, but it is clearly a commercial ad. Now is THAT legit?

(Or does it matter whether the subject of the ad is seen as the photo of the man or the man himself?)
 
shaaktiman said:
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to question his religous authenticity. His motives perhaps, however I'd reckon it is just as likely that he went for the cash compensation as a form of punishment to the photographer and to discourage future would be documentarians of reluctant Hasidic jews.

With this particular jew though, it sounds like he felt exploited and tried to strike back as effectively as possible. I do see why he felt exploited, if we are to be honest with ourselves he WAS exploited. That said, I am glad he lost. Society has more to gain as a whole from certain forms of exploitation than it costs to the individual. Had this case gone the other way and it was ruled that personal privacy trumps the right of the photographer to document a public space then what would stop someone from suing a newspaper journalist or a TV news crew? (They also ply their trade for profit, don't they?)

The main thing I took away from this ruling was a clarification on our right to photograph indiscriminately. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between commercial photography and fine art or journalism. Just look at the end product that's being sold (or displayed, reproduced, etc., whatever). If the end product is the image itself then you're golden. But if the image is being used to sell a seperate product or service then it is an ad. It doesn't become commercial if you sell the IMAGE. But it does if the image is selling something else.

So here's my question. Let's say this artist has a blockbuster show coming up. As part of the marketing campaign for the show he runs ads featuring the famous photograph. (So now the photo of the man is being used to sell photos, or the show, or perhaps the artist himself.)Whatever, but it is clearly a commercial ad. Now is THAT legit?

(Or does it matter whether the subject of the ad is seen as the photo of the man or the man himself?)
Click to expand...


Huh?

Do you have even the slightest notion of what a Summary Judgement means in a lawsuit?

It means that after claims and (in this case) even amended claims were filed with the court by the plaintiff, upon motion by the defendants, the judge deemed the case to be totally without legal merit!

In other words, it should never have seen the light of day as a legal matter. The plaintiff was wrong to bring the suit and was rightfully denied an attempt to get it to trial.

Summary judgement can be appealed - but it is almost always upheld because it is a threshold finding in law.

These are the kinds of stupid lawsuits that clog court calendars and thus delay legitimate litigants from getting timely hearings of their claims!

The plaintiff here was the bogus exploiter who thought he could get a quick buck via an out of court "settlement". The defendant chose to contest the bogus claim and the court agreed!

HOW DENSE DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO NOT SEE THAT?

The "exploiter" was the plaintiff!
 
Last edited:
shaaktiman said:
With this particular jew though, it sounds like he felt exploited and tried to strike back as effectively as possible. I do see why he felt exploited, if we are to be honest with ourselves he WAS exploited.
Click to expand...

The plaintiff found out years later that an artist made a lot of money with his likeness. If you wish to call that exploitation then you are very wrong indeed (and a sore business loser). I would call this cleverness and pure business savvy. It is obvious that the defendant knows federal and state laws as they apply to his business circumstances.

The plaintiff did not know the law. He argued that his religion was being violated. Because the law ultimately upheld DiCorcia, the plaintiff was consequently NOT EXPLOITED. Moral and religious values are not part of the equation here.

Clearly the plaintiff was too stubborn to even read the applicable laws even after speaking to DiCorcia on the telephone, who explained them to him. The plaintiff went on to hire an expensive attorney to sue for money.

You have to admit that some people have a knack for selling art for a lot of dough. Not anyone can do this. It requires a good business mind, some notoriety and the proper client connections.

The defendant is a well-known artist. People buy his pictures because they are DiCorcias being sold at the Pace/Macgill Gallery, not because of the people whose likenesses are being portrayed.

I think it is clear to most that the plaintiff was simply using religion as a cover in order to make a quick fortune and seek revenge on some exceptional businessmen.
 
I think that who you can and can't shoot is a matter of ethics rather than what is legal. Shure it is legal to shoot what you want, however if someone does not want there picture taken than that ought to be respected. If someone is making money of your face and you didn't give consent to do so that is a pretty crappy deal. I say that if someone that you have shot complains, than it is their rithgt to do so. Take the shot and then make sure it is ok because in photography shooting first and asking questions later actully works.
 
Kevin said:
Ethics is no longer a variable in today's global capitalist economy.

You are still dreaming if you feel otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm ashamed that comments like this have blemished the photographic industry and this forum. There is no dream involved here. It's just a matter of being bigger than the childish behavior. The children will follow, or not, but the truth doesn't change. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. To rule out ethics in favor of capitalism sounds more like the practice of a prostitute than a photographer and I thnk I'd have more respect for the prostitute. At least they aren't forcing themselves on their prey.
Street photography is my personal favorite photographic art form both as an artist and a viewer. I hope it can remain so. I personally could not enjoy looking at a seemingly wonderful photograph while knowing that the subject was not only unwilling but distraught. That would somehow make the image a lie, or at most, a photo illustration and not a photograph.
I don't know about the global view, but as an American and a believer in what American principles are 'supposed' to be, I couldn't be in favor of any law that confilcts with the basic principle that my rights end where yours begin, and visa versa. Plain and simple..
 
Great photographs tyically aren't great because of the depicted subjects. So, unless you someone notorious like bin Laden, thinking that anyone is cabable to "make money out of your face" alone is purely delusional.
 
Kevin said:
Ethics is no longer a variable in today's global capitalist economy.

You are still dreaming if you feel otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most bizarre remarks I've ever seen on this forum. I don't know what exactly you think the word "ethics" entails, but it seems much more narrow and/or related to fundamentalism than what my concept of it is. Ethics is not only religion and it's not a fixed system like a law. Go ahead and read some Lévinas and Derrida, to name but two.

As for its relation to photography: if both sides are happy with what happened, it's ethical. Shoot and run is not what I consider ethical. That's my biggest problem with street photography at the moment. I have to find my way into a situation and create an atmosphere that makes everybody feel at ease with the fact that I'm photographing. When that happens, I don't think I will get into problems with the authorities because I'm pre-empting any anxiety involved.

Long way to go, but before I reach it, I won't be able to call myself a street photographer 🙂


Peter.
 
If I am in public with a camera, and choose to take your photo, I will do so. Under most circumstances, I will not seek your consent, I will not ask you to sign a release, I will not restrict myself to taking photographs of what you consider appropriate. I won't look for your flattering side, I won't refrain from making you look as silly and stupid as you (and I) do when we're caught with our fingers up our noses or digging around in our crotches. I see the photo, I decide if I want to take the photo, and then I take the photo. Your input means less than nothing to me.

I am not interested in photos taken with informed consent, they are without value to me. I am interested in life as I find it - and to the degree and extent I find interesting enough to photograph. If you object to having your photograph taken, stay off the public streets.

Oh, by the way...

I am a bank ATM machine.
Or a traffic control camera.
Or a subway surveillance camera.
Or a convenience store robbery camera.
Or any number of cameras mounted on poles and in ceilings in all kinds of public locations anywhere in any metropolitan area in the world.

Or perhaps I am just a person taking a photo.

Certainly I have the same right to do so as an ATM machine.

Go on, assert your rights to the ATM machine not to have your photograph taken as you walk by. Insist that the ATM machine is being unethical. Demand to know to what purpose your image will be ultimately put by the bank or company that owns the ATM machine. Call a cop and demand that the ATM be required to surrender its film or be arrested. Sue the ATM machine. Tell me how well that works.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
My use of the term "exploited" was not in reference to the legality but the fact that he was an unwilling and unpaid participant in the art. Whether or not the artist made any money is irrelevant. Any photography that uses someone's image without their permission is exploitative, by the definition of the word. This is not a new argument.

Now, you can argue about why you think the man sued, whether as an opportunity to make some cash or out of anger at seeing his image misappropriated or out of legitimately held religious beliefs but you are just speculating. The man sued not just for money, but to also restrict the publication and sale of his own image.

The case was rightly dismissed, however that does nothing to change the fact that street photography is, at its essence, an exploitative undertaking. Now, I don't have a problem with this as I believe the benefit outweighs the harm but it is important not to misstate the facts.

Look at it another way. That Anish Kapoor sculpture in chicago, "cloudgate" I think its called, sits in a public space. However, its image is copyrighted and you can not legally sell or publish any photos of it. Even if you are the photographer. Anish Kapoor doesn't want you to benefit from his work and implies that an image of cloudgate does not instantly become yours just because you snapped a photo of it. What is the difference between an image of cloudgate and an image of this guy that makes one protectable and the other not?

"I personally could not enjoy looking at a seemingly wonderful photograph while knowing that the subject was not only unwilling but distraught. That would somehow make the image a lie, or at most, a photo illustration and not a photograph. "

Guess you don't look at much photojournalism then, huh? I doubt that the naked Vietnamese girl from the famous photo was a willing participant in that process, yet I don't see how it suddenly renders the photo an illustration and not a photograph.
 
So Bmattock, I think I understand your point. You say you are like a picture taking machine without a brain or emotions. Interesting. I assume that by making this point you think the rest of us should eliminate our humanity as well, and place ourselves on the level of the misc. non-discriminating picture taking machinery you mentioned. Notice I called them 'picture takers' and not 'photographers'. You can cosider yourself an uncaring support divice for a picture taking device if you want to, but I prefer to stay a photographer. I don't claim to like either this 'Big Brother' society or those picture taking machines. However, even the devices you mentioned are 'supposed' to have a purpose other than profiting from me. They're 'supposed' to be for our protection, therefore not applicable to this string/argument.
Also, you say that if I don't want my picture taken by you, that I should stay off the public streets. Now I'm wondering what other liberties you think you have the right to take with my body if I step off my private property?
I sure hope you decide to become a 'human' photographer again soon.
 
"I personally could not enjoy looking at a seemingly wonderful photograph while knowing that the subject was not only unwilling but distraught. That would somehow make the image a lie, or at most, a photo illustration and not a photograph. "

Guess you don't look at much photojournalism then, huh? I doubt that the naked Vietnamese girl from the famous photo was a willing participant in that process, yet I don't see how it suddenly renders the photo an illustration and not a photograph.
Click to expand...

I'm a huge fan of the likes of Robert Capa and James Nachtwey. In James' documentary/bio movie, he explains at great length how he comes to be accepted and to be known by his subjects in the most grueling of circumstances. He finds that the people actually want the world to know what they are going through and take comfort in knowing that he cares. Robert Capa was famous for the quote: "if your photos aren't good enough, your not close enough". He wasn't just talking about physical distance. He was also talking about relationship with the subject. Of course there are times when this is not possible, but I'm amazed at how often these guys made it so. It's a personal feeling of mine that for a guy who calls himself a photographer and goes around indiscriminatley snyping street photos with a telephoto lens without ever making contact with the subject is like a guy satisfying himself with a Playboy magazine and calling himself a lover.
 
camraluvr said:
Now I'm wondering what other liberties you think you have the right to take with my body if I step off my private property?
Click to expand...

When taking a photo I'm not actually doing anything with your body, am I? I don't touch it, feel it or even have to see it.

I happen to agree with Bill. When you live in a metropolitan area nearly every step you take, every move you make (wait, is that a song?) is recorded on film or photo. What is your perceived problem with being recorded on my film? The fact that I'm a human? Or that I might have some purpose for that shot? Do you know what purpose I have with it? I'll tell you. I blow it up to wall size and use for manual satisfactory purposes, and when I'm done I set it on fire and dance around it naked and covered in blood. Or perhaps I don't. Funny thing is, I don't have to explain purpose or intend to you or anyone else. Now where's that sacrificial chicken...? 😉
 
camraluvr said:
So Bmattock, I think I understand your point.
Click to expand...

The name is Bill, and actually, I think you do not take my point.

You say you are like a picture taking machine without a brain or emotions. Interesting.
Click to expand...

I did not say that. I used irony to illustrate the point that when a person is in public, their photograph is being recorded by any number of devices without their knowledge or their consent. Furthermore, I showed through humor they could not stop such recording even if they knew about it and requested or demanded it. I then replaced the device with myself as photographer to illustrate that if one type of photography is both permitted and in fact unstoppable, so to is the photography that I do.

If you cannot stop the ATM from taking your photo, then you cannot stop me, Q.E.D.

I assume that by making this point you think the rest of us should eliminate our humanity as well, and place ourselves on the level of the misc. non-discriminating picture taking machinery you mentioned. Notice I called them 'picture takers' and not 'photographers'.
Click to expand...

You assume incorrectly.

Furthermore, if there is a distinction between a device that records an image such as an ATM camera and a camera held by a photographer, it is a distinction without a difference - you can call them whatever you wish, of course - the both record photo-realistic images commonly known as photographs.

You can cosider yourself an uncaring support divice for a picture taking device if you want to, but I prefer to stay a photographer.
Click to expand...

It is a difference in terms only. Humans are ultimately food-making devices for worms, if it comes to that. However, most of us think of ourselves in ways more complimentary than alimentary.

I don't claim to like either this 'Big Brother' society or those picture taking machines. However, even the devices you mentioned are 'supposed' to have a purpose other than profiting from me. They're 'supposed' to be for our protection, therefore not applicable to this string/argument.
Click to expand...

If I take your photograph, in what way have you been diminished? What have I 'taken' from you in order to profit thereby?

I can look at it in terms of property rights. I did not take a photograph from your possession - I took a photograph of the focused light rays that struck my film after reflecting off your face or body. If you do not want them to be on my film, keep your light rays away from me. You gave them up, all I did was collect what was offered.

As to the purpose of the devices that record images automatically - in what law was it ever defined that photos taken by an ATM machine were for your protection - or mine? What about anti-robbery cameras in convenience stores? Traffic cameras at red lights? All for our protection? I reject that notion entirely.

ATM cameras are to help banks identify fraudulent transactions. They protect the bank, not you. Anti-robbery cameras protect convenience store clerks, not you. Traffic cameras at red lights are there to generate revenue for the city, not to protect you.

Even if they were 'for our protection' as you suggest - by what right? I don't recall asking the banks that I don't even do business with to protect me. Nor did I ask the 7-11 down the street to protect me by taking my photograph every time I walk by. I might just as easily state that my street photo of you is for your protection. I'd have just as much right to make the assertation as an ATM machine would.

You say you don't care for "Big Brother" and yet you defend the right of such machines to take our photographs without our permission as long as it is for our protection. If that's not embracing Big Brother, then I am not sure what is. That's the actual definition of a Nanny State, which you appear to prefer.

Also, you say that if I don't want my picture taken by you, that I should stay off the public streets. Now I'm wondering what other liberties you think you have the right to take with my body if I step off my private property?
Click to expand...

None whatsoever. How have I touched your body by taking your photograph? Did I touch you? Force you to pose? Threaten you with violence? All I did was record an image that reflected off of you, just as an ATM machine, etc would do. You have lost nothing, your body has not been touched in any way.

Oh, but wait. You were perturbed. Yes, you don't want your photograph taken without your permission, and I have harmed you by doing something you don't like. Well, the world is full of people doing things you don't like. Get used to it.

If taking your photo damages you in some indefinable way, then so does simply looking at you, listening to you talk, or even smelling your odor as you pass by. Can you demand that I not look at you when you are in public? Can you demand I not hear your words if you say hello to a friend and your words are not meant for me? Can you demand that I not notice if you have not bathed lately? If you cannot, then I posit that you cannot demand that I not record your photo.

I sure hope you decide to become a 'human' photographer again soon.
Click to expand...

Oh, me too.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
camraluvr said:
It's a personal feeling of mine that for a guy who calls himself a photographer and goes around indiscriminatley snyping street photos with a telephoto lens without ever making contact with the subject is like a guy satisfying himself with a Playboy magazine and calling himself a lover.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about a telephoto lens? That's a product of your imagining. I personally use a 50mm lens in 99% of my street photography - a 35mm otherwise. I get close. I don't ask permission, and I'm not interested in group hugs or singing Kum-bi-yas with my subject.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Jon Claremont said:
Is this the same Bill who sometimes needs new glasses because he gets into fights?
Click to expand...

I am that merry wanderer of the night. I have not gotten into any fights with anyone I've ever photographed, however.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
A long time ago were "primitive" people who did not like you take pictures of them because afraid you steel their souls, anima.
To day are mainly citiziens who do not like you take pictures of them because ...
things are getting strange and complicated ...
rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Arjay
Street Photography, the Internet and the Right to Privacy
7 8 9
Replies
160
Views
12K
Jamie123
J
W
NYT Story on troubled girls & photography
Replies
12
Views
1K
wlewisiii
W
Back
Top Bottom