Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/05/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]see them <http://arnesvenson.com/theneighbors.html> ric . On May 26, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Bill Pearce" <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information