Philip-Lorca diCorcia Lawsuit Dismissed

[tim atherton]

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.

and your point is? what is an "editorial position" and what difference does it make?

Newpapers are sold to make money, art is sold to make money - both have certain constitutional protections which "pure" comercial work (advertising and such) doesn't

 

[tim atherton]

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.

I reread this and the posts it referred to - I still don't understand what distinction you are trying to make and why?

 

[blansky]

and your point is? what is an "editorial position" and what difference does it make?

Newpapers are sold to make money, art is sold to make money - both have certain constitutional protections which "pure" comercial work (advertising and such) doesn't

On top of that one of newpapers purposes is to inform and that of the arts is to inspire.

Lets let them do it unencumbered by the sincere or insincere feelings of the subjects they cover. Because neither has a monopoly on what is important.


Michael

 

[John Koehrer]

Tim
I guess I see a difference between a news shot & something taken and intended for personal gain at the getgo.
I like the photo of the gentleman in question but wouldn't buy it even if I had the $20K. Mainly because of his beliefs. I also wouldn't buy Photos of the Amish or Muslim for the same reason. There seems to be a lack of respect for other peoples religion.
If the gent was still a working diamond merchant it could also put him in danger of being identified as a target for robbery.
The photo of "napalm girl" was taken as a journalists recording of today's happenings regarding the horrors of war. Not as something intended as a page in a book.
If you don't see the difference that's OK, I don't mind.
John

 

[blansky]

John the crux of your argument seems to come down to "intent of usage", for the print.

If we use that as a conclusion then does that mean that only "press" photographers have the right to photograph the human condition because their intent is more "noble" than any other photographer.

You argument seems to mean that if something is done for "money" that it taints the purity of the work. If I work for a large corporation, I'm a great photojournalist, but if I'm self employed photographer, I'm a money grubbing opportunist.

It's an interesting theory but who can make those decisions then, about what is photographed, the photo police checking bank accounts and press passes?

Does that negate me walking around taking pictures of things, and when something interests me I should censor myself and say, this picture should only be taken by a press photographer because I may end up making money off it.

I don't think your argument can hold up.

But if you feel that YOU shouldn't take certain pictures, then by all means turn away, but the law, and rightly so, gives me the right to.

Michael

 

[Foto Ludens]

Michael,

There is a difference between you walking around and taking pictures, and you walking around and taking pictures with the intent of selling or displaying them.

Intent plays a role; what big of a role may be discussed.

Journalism is given a break because we perceive a benefit from it. Art is given a break as well, but as the perceived benefit is smaller than that of journalism, the break is smaller. If this line of thought is taken up, then an independent documentary photographer such as myself is given a smaller break than a photographer working for the New York Times or for a photo agency.

Let me put it this way: the photos of vietnam raised awareness of the horrors that went on during the war, they informed the american citizens and the rest of the world; diCorcia's photo shows an orthodox jew with a blurry background. As has been pointed out before, the specific face doesn't matter to his photo (he could have dressed a model up). As a result, diCorcia's message is vague or non existent, whereas the vietnam photos had a strong one.

My point is that the photos in question do not portray the "human condition" in equal proportions, and so don't have an equal claim to "breaks".

 

[blansky]

There is a difference between you walking around and taking pictures, and you walking around and taking pictures with the intent of selling or displaying them.

If I'm a print journalist, is my work more important, or get more of a break than a person who writes a non fiction expose book about something, obviously for profit.

Michael

 

[blansky]

My point is that the photos in question do not portray the "human condition" in equal proportions, and so don't have an equal claim to "breaks".

But who gets to decide that.


Michael

 

[Elox]

Does that negate me walking around taking pictures of things, and when something interests me I should censor myself and say, this picture should only be taken by a press photographer because I may end up making money off it.

Back to the original topic, that was not what diCorcia did. He apparently went out and created an ambush portrait set-up to make a series of head shots with the intent of selling limited sets. This was not a photographer wandering around hoping for some "decisive moment" or "newsworthy" shot, but a planned endeavor. One question I have not seen answered anywhere is if any of the subjects were aware of what was going on or if the objected at the time of the photograph.

Is the result art? Maybe.

Is it the same as seeing someone on the street and going home and painting or sketching them from memory? No.

Should the subject of the photo have the right to object? Yes.

Would I ask the subject before I sold something like this? Yes.

Would I sell, knowing the subject didn't want the photograph shown or sold? No.

Would you?

 

[blansky]

I understand that people may or may not like the photographer in questions tactics but laws to inhibit him would inhibit us all.

That is the real point.

Michael

 

[Foto Ludens]

I understand that people may or may not like the photographer in questions tactics but laws to inhibit him would inhibit us all.

That is the real point.

Michael

I, at least, am not concerned with the law here, but with his ethics.

This is why you an I seem to disagree in this topic, I think. You seem to perceive me as questioning the judge's decision, but I'm not doing that. The law is the law, and that's fine. What I question is the ethical justifications offered for diCorcia's actions.

I guess that in order to understand what I was stating, it would be necessary to forget about the laws for a second. Pretend that finding diCorcia wrong would not send policemen chasing you everytime you pulled out a camera (which is a slippery slope fallacy). Do you still agree with diCorcia's tactics/manners/ethics?

 

[blansky]

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of people's ethics. I hate it when people talk during a movie, I hate it when people drive slow in the fast lane, I hate it when fat people sit next to me on a plane, I hate it when people play their car stereo loud with waaaay to much base, I hate the sound of kids banging their skateboards against the curb for 8 hours a day, I hate it when people open their door against my car, I hate it when people with no physical problems have a sticker that lets them park in the disabled parking spots, I hate it when people send me bills, I hate it when people cut in and out of traffic so they can arrive at their destination 38 seconds before I do, I hate it when somebody sends me spam, I hate it when people lie,......

So to answer your question, this court case was decided correctly and if there are a few jerks floating around, I can live with that.


Michael

 

[tim atherton]

Journalism is given a break because we perceive a benefit from it. Art is given a break as well, but as the perceived benefit is smaller than that of journalism, the break is smaller. .

I'm sorry - but says who? These breaks are given by who?

I'd say in the US Press Freedom and Freedom of Speech (which has been found to include artistic expression) are pretty much put on an equal footing. This case thus far (along with many many others) confirmed that.

In addition, remember, however noble the photojournalists are, in the end, their job is to sell newspapers. Newspapers, TV New outlest etc are all meant to be money making, profitable businesses.

 

[tim atherton]

I, at least, am not concerned with the law here, but with his ethics.

in a way I think you are more concerned with your ethics?

I guess that in order to understand what I was stating, it would be necessary to forget about the laws for a second. Pretend that finding diCorcia wrong would not send policemen chasing you everytime you pulled out a camera (which is a slippery slope fallacy). Do you still agree with diCorcia's tactics/manners/ethics?

I have no real problem with them. What he did was little different than National Geographic does every month - take some photographs of exotic people - pretty much out of context and pretty much without their permission (there is little they can do about it and many don't even know - even today - how widely their image may be published - what say did that Afghan girl ever have?) and publish them for armchair travellers to gawk at as some kind of exotic specimen from another place.

 

[tim atherton]

Let me put it this way: the photos of vietnam raised awareness of the horrors that went on during the war, they informed the american citizens and the rest of the world; diCorcia's photo shows an orthodox jew with a blurry background. As has been pointed out before, the specific face doesn't matter to his photo (he could have dressed a model up). As a result, diCorcia's message is vague or non existent, whereas the vietnam photos had a strong one.

My point is that the photos in question do not portray the "human condition" in equal proportions, and so don't have an equal claim to "breaks".

it seem a rather strange position to take to judge photography (and also to judge art) by its utilitatrian value and how edifying it is?

 

[tim atherton]

perhaps we should also include a judgement of the personal ethics of the photographer? Move Weston's work down the scale a bit because he exploited a series of impressioanble young women...? Salgados up because he talks a lot about global exploitation?

What of a photojournalist who produces some of the most heartwrenching work from the worlds conflict zone but cheats on his wife? where does that place it - because so much of this seems to be coming down to intent and motive !

 

[blansky]

Andre:

I think some people confuse photojournalism somehow with sort of a Mother Theresa syndrome.

I will illustrate: (not necessarily the true story--but close)

I guy gets a job at a newpaper in Widgetville USA population 3 million, he gets tired of shooting pics of the mayor shaking hands, policemen dragging stray cats out of trees and warehouse fires at midnight, so when the Viet Nam war starts he figures, why not. I'm an adreneline junkie anyway, and everyone knows that the way to fame and fortune in photojournalism is shooting dead bodies, so Viet Nam looks perfect.

He hangs around Saigon, goes out into the field once in a while and one day is walking down a road when there is an explosion and lo and behold a bunch of people are running towards him. He sees a naked girl running his way and selects the motordrive with the best lens and fires off 8 shots. Interesting stuff.

He ships the film home and they land on the desk of the editor. He smiles like it just landed from heaven. A nude young girl full frontal, running in anguish towards the camera. How many times do you get to run a picture of a nude girl on the front page. If this doesn't win an award nothing will. He runs the picture.

The rest is history.

I'm missing the altruism here. It's commerce from beginning to end. Like most photographic efforts.


Michael

 

[Roger Krueger]

Do I find diCorcia's action morally questionable? Maybe, still thinking about that. But compared to the average politician or CEO he's a saint. Let's go after the real scumbags first.

Regardless of what I think of the morality of what he did I'll still stick up for his freedom of expression in the same way I'll stick up for the free speech rights of neo-Nazis or the Klan. Free speech only means something worthwhile if it includes wildly unpopular speech. Even Hitler and Stalin supported free speech for those who agreed with them, that's hardly a standard of freedom.

Most importantly though, I can't see how we could shut down diCorcia without also killing off the next Winogrand/Frank/Cartier-Bresson. That would be far sadder than some old guy getting his feelings hurt.

 

[tim atherton]

from the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19phot.html

 

[blansky]

This line in the article interested me:

Also cited was a 1982 ruling in which the New York Court of Appeals sided with The New York Times in a suit brought by Clarence Arrington, whose photograph, taken without his knowledge while he was walking in the Wall Street area, appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in 1978 to illustrate an article titled "The Black Middle Class: Making It." Mr. Arrington said the picture was published without his consent to represent a story he didn't agree with.

While I agree whole heartedly with the supreme court ruling, this above reference was sort of troubling. Because street photography is sort of neutral on issues, and is more of a slice of life portrayal. The above example shows what could happen when a photograph is used as an illustration and this benign aspect may disappear.

Using your image to illustrate a point of view that you may not share and could damage your livelyhood or reputation is not a victimless random sampling of street "life".

On top of that using your likeness as illustration, is heading into commerce and away from the "art" that street photography was defined to embrace.


Comments?


Michael

 

[tim atherton]

This line in the article interested me:

Also cited was a 1982 ruling in which the New York Court of Appeals sided with The New York Times in a suit brought by Clarence Arrington, whose photograph, taken without his knowledge while he was walking in the Wall Street area, appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in 1978 to illustrate an article titled "The Black Middle Class: Making It." Mr. Arrington said the picture was published without his consent to represent a story he didn't agree with.

While I agree whole heartedly with the supreme court ruling, this above reference was sort of troubling. Because street photography is sort of neutral on issues, and is more of a slice of life portrayal. The above example shows what could happen when a photograph is used as an illustration and this benign aspect may disappear.

Using your image to illustrate a point of view that you may not share and could damage your livelyhood or reputation is not a victimless random sampling of street "life".

On top of that using your likeness as illustration, is heading into commerce and away from the "art" that street photography was defined to embrace.

you can find the judges decision online and need to read it - not a very long one. If I can get it right, she took a well developed area of 1st amendment rights - freedom of the press in relation to privacy and then extrapolated - something already done in previous decisions - to the area of 1st Amendment rights in questions - Freedom of Speech (expression). The Arrington case is one of the strongest cases in the former area - freedom of the press. The judge used that as a building block - following some existing precedent - for her decision on freedom of speech vs. privacy in this particualr case

so in that particular case - Arrington - it's deciding - among other things - whether it's journalism heading into commerce (it was the cover), as well as privacy issues. The courts found in favour of the 1st amendment rights of the press.

actually - here's the decision - found it again

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50171.htm

 

[tim atherton]

Using your image to illustrate a point of view that you may not share and could damage your livelyhood or reputation is not a victimless random sampling of street "life".

On top of that using your likeness as illustration, is heading into commerce and away from the "art" that street photography was defined to embrace.

and of course as a photojournalist or editorial photogrpaher, the above happens every day...