Street Photography Legal News

S

shaaktiman

Guest
So I look at the New York Times cover story and it is none other than that Philip-Lorca diCorcia vs. the Hasidic jew that didn't want his photo displayed or sold case.

I am happy to report that the first amendment and the rights of street photographers to shoot whatever the hell they want has won the day!

This is both a case and an overarching legal question that's been debated much at RFF. While the plantiff is appealing the decision it looks like the question (never asked before in a US court by the way!!!) is pretty much finally answered...

Shoot whomever you like in public. It's your right.

full article here... well worth the 5 minutes it takes to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/a...&en=5ad9e04e5cebea59&ei=5094&partner=homepage
 
That's good news. However, I live in Canada and I shoot whatever I can get the hell away with. Of course this gets tricky. 🙂
 
shaaktiman said:
Shoot whomever you like in public. It's your right.
Click to expand...

Hi, I didn't get that from the article. For example, "Even while recognizing art as exempted from the reach of New York's privacy laws, the problem of sorting out what may or may not legally be art remains a difficult one."
 
True, it is a potential problem that this decision rests on proving that your particular image falls into a certain, subjective category. But I don't think they mean to define art, rather to define it in relationship to advertising, which is easier.

I wasn't trying to declare any legal certainties. It's just that this has been a hot topic of debate here and I think this article sheds some light on the legal side of this issue.

It wasn't really the act of being photographed that this guy particularly objected to and sued over anyway. It was the display, distribution and sale of the photos. Ditto with the guy who sued the Times.

The right to not have your photo taken was never really on trial here, but whether you had any say in determining the subsequent image's use. It's kind of interesting I think.
 
I also have to say that I find it very funny that this guy's lawsuit hinged on the statement that his religion prohibits graven images. This guy happened to be in the diamond business, but it is a well known fact that almost all of the big NYC camera stores are run by orthodox Jews.

Bad business to be in if you can't deal with graven images.
 
I still think that the best way to shoot on the street is to do it quick and dirty, and to not get caught; and if you do get confronted, you must have charm and a witty tongue to weasel out of it---or fast legs. 🙂
 
FrankG said:
I still think that the best way to shoot on the street is to do it quick and dirty, and to not get caught; and if you do get confronted, you must have charm and a witty tongue to weasel out of it---or fast legs. 🙂
Click to expand...
Of course such behaviour assumes guilt on your side for what you do. Thankyou, but I'd rather shoot in the open. People don't care anyway.
 
shaaktiman said:
I also have to say that I find it very funny that this guy's lawsuit hinged on the statement that his religion prohibits graven images. This guy happened to be in the diamond business, but it is a well known fact that almost all of the big NYC camera stores are run by orthodox Jews.

Bad business to be in if you can't deal with graven images.
Click to expand...

There are different sects within Orthodox Judaism. Members of the Satmar Hassidic sect are indeed forbidden by their religion to have their picture taken, since they take the 2nd commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image", quite literally. The guy who sued the photographer may have been a member of this (relatively small) sect. The people who run the NYC camera stores are certainly not.
 
hoot said:
There are different sects within Orthodox Judaism. Members of the Satmar Hassidic sect are indeed forbidden by their religion to have their picture taken, since they take the 2nd commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image", quite literally. The guy who sued the photographer may have been a member of this (relatively small) sect. The people who run the NYC camera stores are certainly not.
Click to expand...

So does that mean members possess no state-issued driver's license or US-issued passport? Are they stuck in their NY ghettos for life?
 
Kevin said:
Eugene,

This tread is about law, not technique. Your technique is just one of many.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but I was responding to a post about technique. Or is it prohibited? 🙂

Cheers,
 
As I understand it in Britain you can photograph anything that you can see if you're in a public space, such as a street.

There are a few official restrictions around military airfields and prisons which are clearly signposted, and you may find the polizi taking an interest near Heathrow or similar although what you're doing is quite legal.
 
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