Philip-Lorca diCorcia Lawsuit Dismissed

John Koehrer · Feb 17, 2006

blansky said:
What does a "case of journalism" mean?

What higher calling is journalism that any other form of legal photography.

As a photographer I have a right to record to human condition. I have no obligation to respect your feelings. You are discussing manners, not rights.

The arts are not about manners.

Michael

A case of journalism as in "wasn't intended for display in a gallery"
I don't understand how you cna't see the difference between that and a set up shot. ie there were lights set up on scaffolding for the head shots.

haris · Feb 17, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
Migrant mother was probably taken with consent...

No, it is not. When mother with child in hands runs away from bombing or murderes or rapists who attack her, she doesn't think about giving consent she run for life. And photographer doesn't ask her for consent. IF you ever was in that situation you would know (I mean was there not waching it on TV).

I know (because I was present in those situations) that during war in my country photographers were in shelters near streets waiting for people walking those streets to be shot by snipers. When people were shot those photographers made photos (another question is what to think of a man who see another man who dying in front of him and doesn't try to help...). They publish photographs in magazines, made exhibitions, etc... one word earn money. Nobody asked consent of those shot people can those photographs be published.

Now: Because in one state live people with different cultural, religious, moreal, etc... backgrounds and opinions, there is only one thing which can be done. That is to make a law which will be valid for all those people and everyone should respect it. On the other hand all those people must realize that they make compromise and accepting that law they reject some of theire moral, religious, etc... rights. Concequently, if in one state by law people can be photographed on street, and theire likeness can be published and at the end bring money to photographer, that law is only thing which should be looked at. Because if you give one individual or group to act following theire moral, religious, etc... rights, you must give same right to every other person or group. And as we all have more or less different thinkings about different issues, we will never agree. So, our life would become impossibile.

That is, however this sounds wrong, in case of photograph of that man, law is only thing which should be looking at. That man, going to public, accept that he make compromise with his rights to privacy, and he must be aware of that fact.

blansky · Feb 17, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
I go back to an earlier point: If you are so concerned with the human condition, shouldn't you respect the human beings you photograph?

The girl escaping napalm probably couldn't be considered respecting the girl in question but the photograph did have perhaps a "higher" purpose in maybe helping stop the war.

Does photographing the human condition need to respect the person it covers?

You obviously believe it does. I'm not so sure.

Michael

tim atherton · Feb 17, 2006

John Koehrer said:
A case of journalism as in "wasn't intended for display in a gallery"
I don't understand how you cna't see the difference between that and a set up shot. ie there were lights set up on scaffolding for the head shots.

So it was instead taken for far wider display and dissemination in a for profit commercial enterprise i.e. a newspaper or magazine

blansky · Feb 17, 2006

John Koehrer said:
A case of journalism as in "wasn't intended for display in a gallery"
I don't understand how you cna't see the difference between that and a set up shot. ie there were lights set up on scaffolding for the head shots.

So your judgement relies on "intent".

The Afghanistan girls picture is now a gallery picture. Not the intent.

Does the intent of the photographer really make a difference as long as the picture was legally taken?

MIchael

Foto Ludens · Feb 17, 2006

Haris,

I agree with you (I was not aware of the circumstances in Migrant Mother). To see people dying in front of you and not help should raise ethical questions.

As for the law, that is one of the purposes it serves, I think. It lets us function by compromising. But it cannot hurt, and I believe that it is beneficial, to further respect our fellow men and women.

Michael,

The lines between ok for journalism and not ok for art are blurry to me. I agree that some journalism play critical roles, but that's why I said that the intent of journalism is to depict an event. It the girl with napalm was not the ONLY thing in the photograph; rather, a girl with napalm running from a bombed villaged along with other children (passing by soldiers, IIRC) and etc... made the picture.
However blurry the line is, I can place this photo on one side of it, and diCorcia's headshot on another.

removed account4 · Feb 17, 2006

blansky said:
The arts are not about manners.
Michael

tim said:
Good manners rarely makes good art.

it is unfortunate and true.

GraemeMitchell · Feb 17, 2006

I agree with the dismissal.

First, I do think it's art. And I'm glad it was held up as such. As for art being a commercial arena, well, this is the world we live in. On that note, and not to be cynical or to seem silly, but personally, in this country, if you're hung up or offended on being exploited or commercially used to make-money off of then you're in a bad way. It's kind of part of life as far as I'm concerned. But that's just me.

Maybe someone brought this up already, but am I correct or not that in Paris you cannot be photographed in the street??? That you own and have rights to your private space/image even while in public??? I wonder if a French photog chimed in what they're take would be?

Lastly, and ironically for the gentleman suer's case, I imagine the value of the print has skyrocketed now with the given publicity and controversy.

sanderx1 · Feb 17, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
I agree with Celac. The photograph is, unmistakenly, a head shot taken without the subject's permission. To begin with, this is HIGHLY disrespectful of the gentleman in the photo. The fact that this violates the gentleman's religious beliefs for profit makes this unethical in my view. Trying to justify this action by labeling the print "art" does not work once a print is SOLD (or even just exhibited).

André

I really don't get what you are trying to say here. Where is the disrespect angle coming from? And why does it matter what he believes about photography in general and mugshots in particular? What if my religion had photography of humans be forbidden on Mondays? And why is there a need for any justification (art or not) required for it to be sold?

tim atherton · Feb 17, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
To begin with, this is HIGHLY disrespectful of the gentleman in the photo. The fact that this violates the gentleman's religious beliefs for profit makes this unethical in my view. Trying to justify this action by labeling the print "art" does not work once a print is SOLD (or even just exhibited).

what do you do with "art" that isn't exhibited or possibly sold? I don't think it's really art - if it's just done for yourself and yourself alone, it's not really art - more some form of narcissistic self-pleasuring.

Wayne · Feb 17, 2006

I agree with Andre, and Michael's attitude is arrogant "as a photographer I have a right to"....bullshit, and if anyone thinks they have the right to stick a camera or anything else in my face when I dont want it there is in for an expensive surprise. And guess what? I'm a photographer too, but I'm a human being first.

tim atherton · Feb 17, 2006

Wayne said:
I agree with Andre, and Michael's attitude is arrogant "as a photographer I have a right to"....bullshit, and if anyone thinks they have the right to stick a camera or anything else in my face when I dont want it there is in for an expensive surprise. And guess what? I'm a photographer too, but I'm a human being first.

"arrogant" hmmm - sounds more like pot and kettle from here.... thankfully the law isn't on your side - see you in court

Rlibersky · Feb 17, 2006

The decision was a good one. I would say if it bothers you to take pictures without asking then don't. For me it would take away from the real life situations when the people know they are being photographed.

If I took the attitude that every thing I do can be considered offensive I would have to stay home, and then I'm sure my wife would at times consider me offensive. A lot of us have become soft and offend way to easy.

Wayne · Feb 17, 2006

tim said:
"arrogant" hmmm - sounds more like pot and kettle from here.... thankfully the law isn't on your side - see you in court

If the law wont protect me, I just might-thats not arrogance, thats just fact. I'll take my chances in court too. Keep it in mind if you're walking around thinking "as a photographer, I have a right to disregard the wishes of others...".

blansky · Feb 17, 2006

If a person "sticks a camera in your face" that may or not be assault. If I take your picture as you are in public that is far from sticking a camera in your face.

If your reaction is physical, then that is assault and you are not only a "human being" but a violent human being as well. There are places for those people.

Your reaction to your hobby/profession is quite remarkable. If you see photography as a recording of the human condition, how can you put caveats on the legal means which photographers gain their images.

Besides that your threats are juvenile.

MIchael

blansky · Feb 17, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
It the girl with napalm was not the ONLY thing in the photograph; rather, a girl with napalm running from a bombed villaged along with other children (passing by soldiers, IIRC) and etc... made the picture.
However blurry the line is, I can place this photo on one side of it, and diCorcia's headshot on another.

I'm not sure what you mean by this comment about the naked girl but if you didn't know the circumstances of the picture you probably wouldn't know what it was about. Not thats means anything to this discussion.

I agree that the photo in question and the napalm girl may not be of the same magnitide, but legally restricting one could easily restrict the other.

That is why the court decision is important. Not just this case, but in all cases of photographers photographing the human condition, that exists in the "public" world around us.

Michael

gr82bart · Feb 17, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
However blurry the line is, I can place this photo on one side of it, and diCorcia's headshot on another.

Good for you. But that's YOUR line and YOUR placement. It's not everyones.

Art.

Foto Ludens · Feb 17, 2006

Michael,

I'm not trying to argue the legal side of this; the laws define a set of rules, and the court operates along those rules. That's fine.

What bothers me are the ethics/manners employed by diCorcia. I agree that people differ in their conception of ethics, and I'm not trying to impose my view on anyone else here. I am, however, arguing that from my perspective what diCorcia did was wrong, probably humiliating, and potentially cruel. I'd argue that the man in the photograph holds similar feelings.

Given the differences in opinion on the matter, we can do a few things:
1 - say that the laws are here to do make us cope with such differences, so lets stop arguing (at which point I'd ask who made the laws and how were they made - how do they justly manage the differences in ethics?)

2 - say that the differences are irreconsilable and have each person live according to their own ethics (and "screw the rest of the world"). To this I'd ask how long our society would hold together (and how one could justify not caring if one is cruel to others, given that he/she would not want others to be cruel to him/her).

3 - We could each try manage our personal ethics and respect the ethics of others (I don't think that as a photographer I have no option but to insult everyone else), while living in accordance to the law. Now, this is not the easiest alternative, but I think it's better than the two above. Also, this does not exhaust the alternatives, but I hope that you can see where I'm going here.

blansky · Feb 17, 2006

we luckily, live in a society that is guided by laws and this case was decided that what occurred was legal.

We all have ethical dilemmas and ethical choices that we make every day about a lot of things. These ethics usually all stay below the radar of what is legal.

Would I photograph someone without their approval. Maybe, I don't street shoot so it hasn't come up. I guess it would depend on how I felt about it at the time. Some of the best photographs of humans are taken at accidents and horrific circumstances where the photographer turns the camera on the crowd and not the victim. Incredible photographs. Should he need their consent to see the unbridaled display of their humanity. I don't think so. Is he infringing on their "space". Yes he is. Is it ethical? Don't know.

But I sure hope that it is legal.

Michael

sanderx1 · Feb 17, 2006

Wayne said:
If the law wont protect me, I just might-thats not arrogance, thats just fact. I'll take my chances in court too. Keep it in mind if you're walking around thinking "as a photographer, I have a right to disregard the wishes of others...".

Well, breaking the care that was being used to take a photograph of you, whetever youapprove of it or not will get you into trouble with both civil and criminal courts and rightly so. This is regradless of whetever said photographing was in a public place or not.

Foto Ludens · Feb 17, 2006

Well, if nothing else, at least I enjoyed this discussion. Hopefully one day I'll have my ethics better defined and I'll be able to meet issues such as this head on. At least we were able to distinguish legality from ethics, which is a good start.

André

gr82bart · Feb 17, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
What bothers me are the ethics/manners employed by diCorcia.

Now this I can relate, but in the end, it is no different that Letterman going on the street and cornering some unsuspecting person to be part of his ridicule.

I am, however, arguing that from my perspective what diCorcia did was wrong, probably humiliating, and potentially cruel. I'd argue that the man in the photograph holds similar feelings.

Obviously the man's feelsings is what is in question here. My only analogy is the silly 'diversity' stuff that US corporations have in place today. As a Canadian, and apparently here in America I'm considered a visible minority, I find this concept pretty funny. I find the eggshells people walk at work hilarious. I feel like asking people if they have small pets and then saying, as if I was dreaming in some far off land, while licking my lips, "That would be tasty in a stir fry!" Anyway, the concept of 'hurting one's feelings is getting out of hand today, IMNSHO. Get some skin! Fer crying out loud.

I don't know, mybe he was hurt, maybe not. His case certainly generated a lot of publicity. I wonder if his relatives have to ask to take his family pics. Now that would be make for an interesting investigation. I noticed he was a jeweller too. Call me skeptical. Personally, I'd be bragging if I was photographed and someone thought my image was worth $20k. But that's just me, and my ethics. Of which I have very little, if any at all.

I wonder what he would have done if a cartoon was made of him....

Regards, Art.

haris · Feb 18, 2006

Andre R. de Avillez said:
Haris,

I agree with you (I was not aware of the circumstances in Migrant Mother). To see people dying in front of you and not help should raise ethical questions.

Andre, I was not reffering for that particular photograph I don't know that particular photograph. I was reffering generally about behaving in those situations.

I am saying this just for avoide any confusion here.

John Koehrer · Feb 18, 2006

tim said:
So it was instead taken for far wider display and dissemination in a for profit commercial enterprise i.e. a newspaper or magazine

The newspaper was using it from an editorial position, I believe the photo has been sold since that time but the original purpose was editorial.
The headshot in question was intended to be "art" from the get go.

Nacio Jan Brown · Feb 18, 2006

I'm reminded of something I recently read where Joan Didion reports that people open up to her not realizing that doing so might be against their best interests. "It always is" (or something like that) was her response. That said, I believe the dismissal was proper.

Philip-Lorca diCorcia Lawsuit Dismissed

haris

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency