4 ms·
In the US it’s pretty well established that art is exempt from privacy laws. It gets muddy[1]when you try to use it commercially: so you can sell a photograph
by mc32 5y ago
In the US it’s pretty well established that art is exempt from privacy laws. It gets muddy[1]when you try to use it commercially: so you can sell a photograph as art, but you can’t use it without consent or permission if the art is for commercial purposes (to advertise, for example).
A well known case is a Hasidic Jew suing photographer DiCorcia. New York State sided with the photographer: http://www.artistrights.info/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia http://www.artistrights.info/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia
[1]Whats the rule if you have an exhibit and the gallery or whatever wants to advertise they have an exhibit by the artist. Can they put up big banners with the art? Is that commercial use?
- kolanos 5y agoIn the U.S., you can use a photo you have taken for commercial purposes without requiring the consent of the subjects in the photo as long as: 1) the subject didn't hire you to take the photo (thus making it their property), 2) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (photo taken in a public place). [0] Any "muddy" aspects are purely a civil matter, and even then, public photography is a constitutionally protected activity under the first amendment. [0]: https://www.pixobo.com/photography-laws-can-a-photographer-use-my-photos-without-my-permission/ https://www.pixobo.com/photography-laws-can-a-photographer-u...
- mc32 5y agoYes, however, I believe you cannot take a public photograph and use it as a basis for a commercial advertisement: to sell nappies, or cars, etc…
- Valgrim 5y agoThen you have to describe a legal definition of art, which is something artists spend their entire life trying to destroy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
- NineStarPoint 5y agoI think people are more discussing what the law should be in the modern age than what the law currently is.