I knew nothing about this until I read it here - but I think it's an intriguing case. I can see both peoples perspectives but ultimately I think Lorca Di Corcia is in the right - although I think it's a shame that it has come down to this.

If we are to document our world and to capture an essence of truth (which admittedly I am unsure photography can do) then people need to be able to take images of people without knowing. I am not sure that Lorca Di Corcia is a good example of a truth in photography as his images are so extremely orchestrated - where as the works of Diane Arbus and Weege are much more dynamic and are a testament to why Lorca Di corcia has to win the case. I feel this case is more an instance of sour grapes on behalf of thesubject of the photo than an issue of privacy (from the little I've read) and hopefully will be thrown out of court with the contempt it deserves. If we are to leave any kind of a legacy behind of what this century was like then people need to keep on being able to catch those rare real moments in life.

Having said this though I think the sticking point comes when people try to define privacy and what is acceptable and unacceptable - and this is where I am as lost as the next person. I just couldn't determine it.

but wait--isn't there a difference between taking pictures of people without permission vs. making money from taking pictures of people without permission? I think the first is ok, but the second is unethical.

(though I guess it depends on the photo)

Hi, this may be new in the US but it's been happening for years in France. A law was passed there some time ago prohibiting the publication etc of any photograph without the subject's written permission - and worse, the law was made retroactive! It lead to the ridiculous case of Doisneau being sued by the models for his famous photo of lovers kissing in front of the town hall of Paris, several decades after the picture was taken. As if this weren't bad enough, there was another case of a photographer who was sued by the owners of the volcano at the source of Volvic mineral water, on the grounds that the publicity was damaging to their collective property. And the photographer lost. The company that redesigned the lighting for the Eiffel tower have copyrighted it so you can't use pictures without permission/paying royalties. Phtotgraphers there joked that the only thing left for them to take pictures of were the sea and sky (court case pending).

Photographers do still have rights in France, but they are now being so undermined by 'les droits a l'image' that they might almost not have.

Did the guy photographed by Dicorcia have the idea, buy the lights, the film, pay for processing, printing etc etc? Is it right that he should profit from the photographers efforts and investment, intellectual, artistic and financial, just because he had the good fortune to pass that way on the right day and be thus - beautifully -imortalised?

recently at auction in paris a print given by doisneau to the women in the lovers kissing infront of hotel de ville photo was sold for 200,000 dollars or thereabouts give or take the odd 20,thou..."models"?they certainly were in the right place at the right time.

I may have got this wrong, but I thought that as a result of this case Doisneau/estate admitted that the couple photographed had posed for the shot. Thanks for the info about the auction - $200,000 is a hell of a lot of money! Unfortunately, I think this kind of lucrative result to such court cases gives people a false impression of how much images are worth.

Lorca diCordia's freedom of expression became a commercial product without Nussenzweig's permission. Unlike people who chose to profit by being in the public eye, such as sports and movie stars, Nussenzweig deserves ownership of his image
until he contracts otherwise. His face was not chosen randomly, and it did not come about without a lifetime of effort.

Lorca diCordia's image of Nussenzweig was not stand-alone - it was just one in a large series of photographs of many other passers-by taken in a similar vein. Had the subject been picking his nose or something equally embarrassing at the time the photographer chose to make that image I might sympathise more, but it's not the case. To my eyes, all the pictures in this series are dignified, respectful - beautiful.

Also dignified is, from what I understand of this case, the choice of arena in which the resulting image has been presented, i.e. in highly respected art museums and galleries with, on the whole, discerning publics. As art works their potential as a 'commercial product' is limited. In contrast, had the pictures been used in a multi-million dollar ad campaign, or used to illustrate articles on subjects (controversial or not) which would have caused any of the people depicted in Lorca diCordia's photographs to be misrepresented in some way, again I would sympathise. But it's not so.

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world in which we are all filmed, watched without our individual prior consent, from the powerful and famous to the most ordinary, if only through CCTV security cameras. The companies that run these security systems earn money for watching us. Why not sue them for a cut?

If, rather than hoping to make some pin money or achieve notoriety with this case, someone sincerely feels singled out and perhaps even victimised, I do feel sorry for them because in this particular instance they're missing out on something rather beautiful. Of course, nobody is infringing anyone's right to publically make an ass of themself. But it won't sully my own personal appreciation of Lorca diCordia's images.

"When Erno Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew and retired diamond merchant from Union City, N.J., saw his picture last year in the exhibition catalog, he called his lawyer. And then he sued Mr. diCorcia and Pace for exhibiting and publishing the portrait without permission and profiting from it financially. The suit sought an injunction to halt sales and publication of the photograph, as well as $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

The suit was dismissed last month by a New York State Supreme Court judge who said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. But to many artists, the fact that the case went so far is significant."

by Philip Gefter
Published March 19, 2006 copyright New York Times

For the rest of this article, go here:-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19phot.html?ex=1300424400&en=f7e05d1e10cf9b14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

It took me AGES to find this thread again...