Subject of long distance shot sues

[Keith Loh]

Interesting information for our licensing concerns...

Philip-Lorca diCorcia Sued

Philip-Lorca diCorcia is being sued by an Orthodox Jewish man that he photographed in 2001, as part of his Heads series:
"DiCorcia rigged strobe lights to scaffolding and trained his lens on an "X" he taped to the sidewalk. From 20 feet away, he took shots of Nussenzweig and thousands of other unsuspecting subjects. Later that year, diCorcia exhibited this image under the title "#13" at a Pace Wildenstein gallery show called "Heads" in Chelsea. The photographer said multiple prints of Nussenzweig's picture sold for about $20,000 each. The picture also was published in "Heads," a book that sold several thousand copies, diCorcia said.

Now Nussenzweig, a retired diamond merchant from New Jersey, is snapping back at diCorcia — and at the right of photographers to secretly grab pictures on the street and sell them — by suing him, Pace Wildenstein, publisher Pace/MacGill and unnamed distributors and sellers of the image and the book.
...

[K. Forman]

Always get the model release forms signed.

[Dylan Couper]

Can't say I wouldn't sue, cause I sure would too.

[Steve House]

If the plaintiff wins this case it sure will put a damper on fine-arts photography. The general practice has been AFAIK that a release wasn't needed if the subject was shot in a public place and the resulting images weren't being used for advertising purposes. Many of the great fine-arts photos of the 19th and 20th centuries were shot where I'm certain no release exists.

[George Odell]

I wonder if the $20K per pop he was selling them for had anything to do with the subject filing suit?

[Dennis Vogel]

Originally Posted by Steve House

If the plaintiff wins this case it sure will put a damper on fine-arts photography. The general practice has been AFAIK that a release wasn't needed if the subject was shot in a public place and the resulting images weren't being used for advertising purposes. Many of the great fine-arts photos of the 19th and 20th centuries were shot where I'm certain no release exists.

Times change. I'm sure no one would want to go back to the 19th century. Lots of new things have come along since then. It appears that using others likenesses for your own profit--even if recorded in a public place--without their consent is one of theml. Can't say that I disagree. Why should anyone solely profit for recording the face of an interesting person just because they're in public?

Good luck.

Dennis