[Leica] a photographer sued

[billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce)]

I am conflicted by this project. Some of the samples I have seen on the net 
interest me, and I would certainly hang them in my home. It seems to be the 
logical extension of the seventies photographers that shot "landscapes" that 
attempted to show the banality of American life, a thing that I recognised 
but didn't want to see reinforced. So I like some of the results but don't 
like the concept. Ugh!

-----Original Message----- 
From: Michael Russ
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:30 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] a photographer sued

I'm conflicted by this.  On the one hand, his project seems creepy, but
only because the subjects weren't asked to participate.  I have not seen
the pictures to determine if they would interest me if I had known the
subjects had been asked to be photographed rather than been photographed
unknowingly.  Also, has he really invaded their privacy if they leave
their curtains open for anyone to see into their homes?  Privacy is
something you have to create for yourself through the use of barriers,
and if you willfully drop your barriers, can you complain of the
results?  After all, he did not physically set foot in their homes.
Violation of social mores against doing such things is another matter
and possibly not legally actionable.

Just musing, but would there be more of a problem for the photographer
if the subjects had taped signs to their windows stating that taking
pictures in their homes was forbidden?  Would this also work for people
walking down the street who don't want street photographers taking
pictures of them (admittedly, this is stretching the concept a bit, but
when hasn't the law not stretched itself by accident . . .)

I think the more interesting outcome may involve what the photographer
could do with the images without model releases, since the photographs
were not taken in public spaces.  I have never quite fully understood
the fine details of the distinction between editorial and commercial
uses of a person's image.  Since the photographer is selling pictures of
the subjects but not using the subjects to sell other things, perhaps it
doesn't matter that the subjects didn't consent to their photographs
being taken, and he can sell the pictures without model releases.

Mike


On 5/26/13 11:50 AM, Montie wrote:
> This individual is in for a hard ride IMO...no effort to get permission
> or a release, invades their pivacy, documents the invasion, then attempts
> to use the results for personal gain? Geez...maybe worse than voyeruism.
> Guess it depends on how identifiable the subjects are.  I would have
> gone for silhouettes!  :-)
>
> Montie
>
>>> I was actually quite surprised a gallery agreed to represent and sell 
>>> what
> seems to be the work of a Peeping Tom at best, a voyeur at worst. At any
> rate, some definitive case law should come out of it, which should clarify
> the dos and donts for the future.
> Cheers
> Jayanand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information