|
|
|
||
I have discussed the legality of photographing in public, what situations necessitate a model release, and other related subjects with many of my coworkers. Unfortunately, it seems things may change depending on the outcome of this case. Photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia is being sued by a man he photographed as part of his “Heads” series. He took the photo on the street without the man’s permission. He then proceeded to sell several prints for 20k a piece, and publish the image in a book that sold many copies as well. Currently this is all perfectly legal (despite what many people will tell you).
Man, what really sucks is that I can see both sides of this one. I totally think that people in public are fair game for having their picture taken. If I take pictures on a sidewalk of other people on a sidewalk, then I should be entitled to do anything I damn well please with those pictures. But at the same time, if I’m just minding my own biz walking down the street and some cat takes my picture and then sells said picture for multi-thousands of dollars, then I think I would feel entitled to some of that. I mean could I sell a picture of a copyrighted billboard that I took in a public place? What if I cropped out everything except the billboard? Should I be able to claim a copyright to my own image?
It seems like the opinions on this issue vary greatly from person to person. I really couldn’t care less if people photograph me in public. I have students who snap pictures of me lecturing and post them on the internet. I used to be a nude model at CCAD in Columbus, and there’s paintings and sculptures of me all over the place. I think it’s great. And if people ever made money on any of those things that would be great for them.