I don't think DiCorcia is right. If someone randomly took my picture and then made a living off of it [even if partial] I'd definately want to be compensated for it. Simple as that, he wouldn't have the picture without the model.

I thing the right thing for him to do would be to at least have an open statement saying that if any of the people seen in his photographs wish to be compensated, he can pay them a set price. And if for whatever reason someone doesn't want to have their picture published, remove it and keep it archived for personal purposes.

What a ridiculous case. The laws regarding cases like this and the rights of photographers are sensible and justified, as was the dismissal of this suit against DiCorcia. People do not and should not have the right to control photographs made of them in public environments, regardless of whether these images are for profit or 'art', private or public consumption. Photographs taken in private environments (like your home) where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy are a different story and this is recognised by the law.

The 'grey' area becomes apparent in cases like when people have sued over photographs taken at, say, incidents like 9-11 or perhaps a private funeral in a public cemetary. I for one believe that especially regarding reportage photographs, the public's right to information outweighs the individual's right to privacy.

The core issue in the DiCorcia and similar cases is the right of an individual to censor or control their public image. It would be a sad world indeed if we all had this right. Just think of the political and commercial implications....

i think theres also an interesting issue about freedom of expression vizavee exhibition or publication where the rules are radicaly different ie you can exhibit anything in a privately owned gallery...when it gets to a museum space, a public/state run space its a much more contensious issue...and as for publication then its open season for a vexacious litigant.

So how do you get away with taking photographs of people when they are drunk or asleep in your hotel and then publishing them?

They don't know about it!

I’m curious – what would be a good set fee to offer ‘models’ like, say, Nussenzweig, for the reproduction of his likeness in any form that reproduction could take? Whatever it might be, I doubt it would approach anywhere near the $2,000,000 he was trying to sue diCorcia for. There are actors who don’t get paid that much for a feature length film’s worth of 24 images per second, so how anybody can work out the value of a single one… Or is that a bad analogy?

DiCorcia has actually paid people to model for him - http://artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/Archive/Articles1997/Articles1097/PdiCorciaA.html

Do an image search on his work, if you don't know it already. I think his images are… well, if he did that kind of thing and I could afford it, I’d be prepared to pay him to take my picture!

Before the verdict on this case, which I presume freed up the press to print both Nussenzweig’s photo and the precise reasoning behind his plaint, I hadn’t realised he was suing on religious grounds. The judge seems to have been fairly sensitive to it as an issue, but she still ruled in diCorcia’s favour. What sort of worries me is that her decision was based in large part on his having “demonstrated his general reputation as a photographic artist in the international artistic community," because this means that his individual reputation swung the thing in his favour rather than the more general arguments forwarded by his lawyer, who said "If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit and sell photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might appear in those photographs, then artistic expression in the field of photography would suffer drastically.” So, is it just diCorcia’s individual right as a now legally recognised artist that has been successfully defended? What about everyone else? How is it that we’ve reached a stage (and it’s not just happening in America) where the value of photographers work is determined by judges in courts of law based on their international reputations?

At the other extreme… If I were to visit New York and by chance photograph aforandrew in a bar, say, sitting behind someone else’s drink, then the image was reproduced on billboards across the city in a public awareness ad campaign condemning alcoholism, would he not be perfectly within his rights to sue me?

"Simple as that, he wouldn't have the picture without the model."

Well hello. Few years back I did a reportage and the organisers (one of whom was also a very willing subject of my documentary) threatened me with violent retribution because they wanted absolute universal and eternal rights to my pictures (which they hadn't commissioned of me, and I did all the work in my own time and at own expense) on the grounds that if they hadn't set up the event I photographed (with their consent, and they obviously loved my photos) I wouldn't have had anything to photograph. Yeah, right.

Take a few more pictures. Like them a bit more than you evidently do - start according them a value, greater than that of your own image perhaps. Perhaps start seeing in them even a fraction of the value that other people see in them (and forgive these for being so presumptuous as to say so - start learning how to take compliments, basically).

Or, write up and print off general model release forms and make sure people sign them before you take any photos. (I tried that too. People lie about their identities if they think they can earn an easy buck from a lawsuit).

Or... close your eyes. point and shoot. never develope the films. go away and do something less visual instead.

[oh god, PMT again...] [sorry]

Kind of reminds me how on roller coasters as you're sailing over the edge, cameras snap your face twisted in absolute horror so that, once you're safely on the ground again, the amusement park can sell your picture to you in a cute little key chain so that you can always remind yourself how you, once again, cheated death.

F:lux, waaaay too presumptuous... that's one of those statements you're going to read in two months and really regret.

Thanks, but no thanks.