A Man is Suing a Photographer for Taking His Picture Without His Permission
This man is suing a photographer for taking his picture without his permission in 2001.
The photographerwas was working on a project, called "Heads," where he took pictures of people walking in the city unbeknownst to them, rigging lights and focusing his lens on a spot 20 feet away from them.
The man is upset that the photographer is benefiting from his photograph because it's been sold as a print and as a part of a book. The photographer says that he worries about artists' ability to photograph in the city and says, "It is a fundamental right, and I will defend it. I consider myself at the end of a long line of photographers who have done what is now being described as a malicious criminal act."
posted by VOS IZ NEIAS @ 6/26/2005 03:41:00 PM
4 Comments:
At 9:26 AM,
Anonymous said…
Thats is hillarious Mr. Nussenzweig especially in Times Square where there are like 300 surveillance cameras that can note your every move. And you decided to go after an artist? Give it up buddy, to have a free society you need to have a free society. You have no chance winning.
At 9:30 AM,
Anonymous said…
I hate to say it, but the photographer/publisher is wrong here. While there was nothing wrong with capturing the shot in the first place - that's perfectly legal - you can't use a photograph of someone in a commercial context without explicit permission. The subject has a right to allow or disallow such use. If you proceed without explicit permission, you haven't committed a crime but the law does allow for a subject to collect substantial monetary judgements in civil court. Because of such liability issues, most publishers will not accept photography for print if a release does not accompany the photo. (This does not apply to journalism or personal use in public places, of course)
You need to get a signed release in these situations. Not getting the release means that you can be sued. That's a basic photography practice, and it's addressed in every photo school in the world. I don't know why the photographer and publisher put themselves in this situation. This was a dumb move on their part, and they should settle out of court.
Of course, the subject is just being greedy - knowing that the publisher and the photographer didn't cover them selfs, he's in a position to take all the money for himself. Considering how much money was made on these shots so far, it's as if he won the lottery. It's kind of immoral, but many people would do the same knowing they could get a lot of money out of it.
At 9:57 AM,
Anonymous said…
There is nothing immoral in suing this photographer. He can take photographs but cannot profit from it unless he gets a release.
Since he did not get this release he should pay whatever he has to pay to Mr. Nussenzweig plus punitive damages. This should be a lesson to all other photagraphers.
If you let one photographer get away with it, soon you will have your picture taken and there is no end in sight. Then comes the photographers who try to portray you in some stereotype.
Again this should be a lesson to all photographers.
At 11:31 AM,
Anonymous said…
I fully agree that the phtographer is wrong here.
It is ironic when people in a democratic society tend to stick for the person "pushing the limits" - Except of course when they are the ones being offended.
In any case, Pinchas Milach is correct and the photographer could not use it in a commercial context without the person's permission.
I give credit to Mr. Nussenzweig because he is not really the one that started this and he does not need this publicity at all. Those who know who this man is would agree 100% with me.
The truth is, no one wants their picture put out in such a fashion without their consent.
Post a Comment
<< Home