"In 1999 Philip-Lorca diCorcia set up his camera on a tripod in Times Square, attached strobe lights to scaffolding across the street and, in the time-honored tradition of street photography, took a random series of pictures of strangers passing under his lights." - New York Times
My 83 year old dad cut the article out from the Times and sent it to me with a note, "thought you would find this interesting." At least ten people e-mailed me links to the article.
The gist of the article is that Philip-Lorca took a series of long-lens shots of people walking under his strobe lights and then had a show of the "heads."
An orthodox Jew saw his head shot in the show's catalog and sued the photographer on the grounds of invasion of privacy - and the fact that his religion forbad the worshop of graven images - or something like that.
The case went through the usual channels and wound up at - state supreme court - where it was thrown out.
That, anyway - is my understanding of the case.
The article in the Times (and maybe it has appeared in other venues) included a reproduction of the complainent - Erno Nussenzweig's head.
"Neale Albert, the lawyer who represented Pace/ MacGill, said the case surprised him: 'I have always believed that the so-called street photographers do not need releases for art purposes. In over 30 years of representing photographers, this is the first time a person has raised a complaint against one of my clients by reason of such a photograph.'"
The decision confirmed that street photography - being an art form - was protected by the constitution.
Link to article.
Several thoughts ran through my mind:
1) The reach of the New York Times is astounding.
2) Erno Nussenzweig complained that his religious rights had been violated in that his religion forbad the use of graven images.
- Does Mr. Nussenzweig have a driver's license with his photo on it? And if so - isn't this also a violation of his religion?
- I thought (silly me) that the worshop of graven images was forbidden, not the taking of photographs.
- Could the New York Times be sued for reproducing Mr. Nussenzweig's head shot?
3) So many people have written to me over the years asking whether I got model releases from strangers photographed on the street. This would be a good case to cite.
4) What would happen if a less-financially solvent photographer (myself as an example) were sued. Instant poverty?
5) Since "big brother" security cameras are now all over the place - citizens are being photographed all the time. Since these photographs are not for artistic reasons - wouldn't that make a better case?
6) There is no "time-honored tradition" of photographing strangers with a long lens and strobe lights. Where is the intimacy? Where is the time-honored tradition of fragments that coalesce at just the right moment?
7) How exactly did Erno Nussenzweig discover this shot of himself in a photographic catalog? I find it hard to believe that he's on the subscription list for the Pace gallery?
8) Mr Nussenzweig has substantially increased the price for Mr. diCorcia's work. I wish someone would sue me - but only if it got the same sort of publicity. Perhaps I should set up a long lens rig outside Mr. Nusenzweig's house.
At any rate - the idea that using a long lens and strobe lights to do street photography is a "time-honored tradition" is nonsense.
This photographic technique has more in common with the big-brother security cameras that are now omnipresent than with traditional street photography. And street photography is not time-honored. Walker Evans put off showing his series of subway close-ups for many years because he was afraid of being sued.
I noticed that Mr. Nussenzweig's image was not shown in the online New York Times version - but was in the print edition. I wonder how many New York Times lawyers it took to make that decision.
I think that when I have the time, I'll scan Mr. Nussenzweig's photograph from the print version and photoshop it into my picture with the monkey on the train. That would take this case to a whole nother level. Let me check first with my own battery of lawyers.