4 ms·

Tangential, but my fav case/story/art related to this. Article about the case : "Voyeuristic Photographer Arne Svenson Wins New York Appellate Court Case- Sh

by neom 5y ago

Tangential, but my fav case/story/art related to this. Article about the case : "Voyeuristic Photographer Arne Svenson Wins New York Appellate Court Case- Should New York revise its privacy laws?" https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-photographs-supreme-court-286916 https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-photog... And a talk by the photographer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePjeX6IiSTQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePjeX6IiSTQ And an article with more of the photos: https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighbors-190516 https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighb...

rocqua 5y ago
As I understand the law "commercial use" as requiring a release form does not include 'advertising yourself as an artist, or selling your photos as art'. This is different from offering your pictures as stock photography, as PR materials, or in advertising of anything other than yourself.
- neom 5y ago
  I think you're right, I only posted the links because I happened to find that art/artist/story particularly interesting/good. From another post on the same blog: "Publishing an image. Not only is it legal to photograph anyone from a public space, it is also legal to display, publish and sell the images in any context except commercial (meaning advertising). This could get a bit confusing to a non-photographer, as it did for Erno Nussenzweig, an unwitting subject of a Philip-Lorca diCorcia Heads project. Discovering that a photo of himself sold for thousands of dollars in a fine art gallery, Nussenzweig sued diCorcia in 1999, claiming that this published photograph violated his religion. He famously lost. Had the photographer sold the image to Coca-Cola to use in an ad, however, the verdict would have been entirely different. A slight, and fair, caveat to the rule is that you can't wildly and willfully misrepresent the subjects. If you photograph a bunch of teenagers hanging out in Washington Square and publish the image with an unfounded and damaging caption like "teenage junkies," you could be held accountable for defamation."

by neom 5y ago

rocqua 5y ago

As I understand the law "commercial use" as requiring a release form does not include 'advertising yourself as an artist, or selling your photos as art'. This is different from offering your pictures as stock photography, as PR materials, or in advertising of anything other than yourself.

neom 5y ago
I think you're right, I only posted the links because I happened to find that art/artist/story particularly interesting/good. From another post on the same blog: "Publishing an image. Not only is it legal to photograph anyone from a public space, it is also legal to display, publish and sell the images in any context except commercial (meaning advertising). This could get a bit confusing to a non-photographer, as it did for Erno Nussenzweig, an unwitting subject of a Philip-Lorca diCorcia Heads project. Discovering that a photo of himself sold for thousands of dollars in a fine art gallery, Nussenzweig sued diCorcia in 1999, claiming that this published photograph violated his religion. He famously lost. Had the photographer sold the image to Coca-Cola to use in an ad, however, the verdict would have been entirely different. A slight, and fair, caveat to the rule is that you can't wildly and willfully misrepresent the subjects. If you photograph a bunch of teenagers hanging out in Washington Square and publish the image with an unfounded and damaging caption like "teenage junkies," you could be held accountable for defamation."