Well if you did need permission from people on the street then how do you explain the book that will be sold with Vivian Maier's photos? Do you really think they have to track down all those people she photographed iAnd get their signature in order to use the photos in her book?

Why does this topic ALWAYS turn into a long back and forth everytime it turns up? Last time we had a street photo discussion my inbox filled up with complaints and some members even vowed never to return to the forum! Just chill out everyone my goodness!

Back on topic which is suppose to be about Vivian Maier and not about eating hamburgers or crows.

Hi Poster and Super Shooter,

"Mmmm... did someone say hamburgers!"

More like crow.

As in eating.

@Super Shooter, I think you might have misunderstood. Newspaper shooters never have to get releases. I hope I never implied that. What I was (wrong) about was street shooters getting releases for art shots. It still seems like a bad idea to me not to get releases, but apparently, privacy is the only 'rule' applied. It seems goofy. Selling prints is a commercial activity, so it follows that in that 'activity' the 'likeness' of the individual would come into play, but it doesn't.

I think when I saw the $20,000 per print - well, it still seems wrong - there's little doubt in my mind that at that price, it's a commercial endeavor. I also suspect that in 50 years the images can be put on anything commercial (bath towels?) without regards to the subjects.

Eh, I'm an old guy.

@SSAfter my first military tour in Vietnam with the Army, I worked with the AP news service and then school and return to service.

My best,

Mike

Mmmm... did someone say hamburgers!

I'm gonna have to back Poster on this. I have no idea what paper you worked for Mike but I have worked with lots of publications too. If street photographers needed permission to sell a picture of you that they took on a public street then why don't Gilden, Winogrand, and others stop and ask for a model release? Because they don't need your permission.

As long as they don't take your photo and then use it in an exhibit about serial killers and imply that you are one then they can use the image of you walking on a public street. If they sell your image to Campbell's soups for an ad campaign then they would need you to sign a model release.

Your example of Wheaties and MoMA is a flawed one because Wheaties is owned by General Mills. Which is a Mega food conglomerate with the sole purpose of making money. The Museum of Modern Art is a Non-Profit organization who's purpose is to collect and maintain an archive of modern and contemporary art. You can't say that they would both need your permission to use a photo of you walking along on a public street.

Okay I think I see where we diverge in our views.

Would you expect a street photographer to have his street photos be used for "Put into a book? On a Wall? On a Posties box?"

Somehow I can't see how how that would happen. Moreover I tend to see street photographers as photojournalists in a sense of documenting the everyday life from a subjective view. They aren't commercial photographers.

I suppose the issue here is also of concern of how widely the product is distributed. Art is valuable in terms or monetary value due to its scarcity as opposed to a normal commercial product which is widely available.

I think that the fact that street photography is random, whereas commercial photography you hire a model you want plays a part in the debate whether street photography should have a model release and

Would you expect a model photo release for a photojournalist? No, since what they photograph is of general public concern. Yes? or No?

Wouldn't you say that street photography, the photojournalism of social, public everyday life to be of public concern? I would say so.

Of course today we don't particularly see today's street photography as important since we are greatly exposed and aware of how life today looks like.

But in 50 or a 100 years would the value of "timeless" street photographs of our everyday live be higher? I think so. Same as we see the value of Winogrand, Bresson, Eisenstaedt or Maier to be important and of historical value today. They provide a glimpse of life from those days.

Another point is logistics. How do you expect a street photographer to go about getting getting release forms? Wouldn't you first have to get the consent of the subject for the release form prior to taking their picture? If so that defeats the purpose of street photography. How will you recreate the scene? Te very idea of recreation of the scene is unethical from a photojournalist point of view. You are there to capture reality and not create or recreate it.

As I have mentioned earlier espousing or provoking a reaction from his subjects would be seen as violation of what street photography is about. Observing and photographing is seen as a pure form of street photography. You are there to capture the truth and not alter it. Sure you can talk to the subject you just photographed it's always nice to get to know new people in my opinion.

I used to hate Gilden and his "street photography". But I see something remarkable in them now. They are remarkable to me and many others.

Each to his own I suppose. It's a case more of liking eating hamburgers but hating knowing how they were made. Some cows died. Some people got mad when their picture was taken. That's life.

PS- AS far as I know, most journalists and photographers working for the New York Times started working at small town newspapers. Respecting your community is important to journalists and photographers alike. I agree with you on your points about newspapers etc.

Hi Poster,

You're right.

It's still my take that Nussenzweig should have a say on how his image is peddled and who profits on it, whether it's on a box of Wheaties or on the Wall of MOMA; I make no distinction. They are both enterprises in which some profit is derived.

I do understand (and agree) with your idea of what you can expect of privacy in a public place, which is none. But what you should expect of that your "exposure" to be? Put into a book? On a Wall? On a Posties box?

And that's probably where we disagree.

It would be legitimate if these people were in the background of a picture of a story or in the periphery of a picture that told a different story, but not the _essence_ of a story.

That's where I draw a line. Without Nussenzweig, there would be no picture.

"Exhibitions in galleries and catalogs are under the umbrella of "art" and is generally not seen as a commercial activity as far as I know."

Like I said, Wheaties and MOMA should be in the same sack. I think they both taste great. To withhold funding for art is stave humanity. Perhaps if we were to put Margret Burke-White on Toasties we would eat better cereals. But the point is, I see little difference. Making a difference is, to me, seems silly. Like a discourse on what makes a professional, perhaps. ;-)

It could go on forever until the water boils out.

Street photography is an interesting area for many folks for many reasons. It's a way to sharpen skills and for many it's a way to 'get out' and meet and talk to people. I don't think that's a small thing. If you're trying to get a shot, you'll be surprised how much people can help or hurt your chances, whether it's for people shots or for scenics. Kindness is a good thing; hostility is a bad thing. People skills will pay off big. The street is where you will learn them.

I learned much more working for a small daily paper than I ever did working for a big newspaper or the big wire service. At the little (mini, micro, tiny) daily, 3 people filled 8 pages of newsprint every day. (Newspapers are _passé_, but if you get a chance to look at one, image you and 2 guys writing and photographing 8 pages every day. It's harder than you can imagine.)

One of the things I learned was respecting the people I covered.

That's the thing that bothers me most about Gilden. There's no respect for his subjects. In fact, there's a real sense contempt, even embezzlement, snatching the image (he did us a hand flash right in the face) that is I just feel he went too far. He lacks judgment.

As for the photos...

Here is what I understood under what the Copyright Treaty held, the images and what Photographers could do and should do.

You could take images at any public place - it's public and for your private use, it's yours, and you own the copyright forever, since you shot it.

What's dicey about copyright is how you can use it. {Owning and Using are two different things. :-) (And that's were I disagree with the NY Courts) If faces are involved, ad agencies are going to want some releases for use. Galleries are clearly more lax. Book sellers must be, too.

The take away is get a release any and every time.

My best.

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
Hi poster,

One more thing...

In the US (and you sort of have to make that distinction) journalists don't protect the privacy of the paper (that was not what I was referring to - the guidelines were simply rules to follow published by the organization), but laws. As an example, the First Amendment doesn't protect our speech from a newspaper (it can censor whoever it wants), but from the government, who has no say in prohibiting speech - as long as it isn't stupid speech as in someone yelling 'fire' in a theater.

Gilden's art, offensive as I personally find it, would have to have some of the subjects complain and file suit in court to stop it from being shown. Moreover, the complainants would have to show damages. That would be a long row for anyone to hoe.

Street photography is its on thing. I've done some of it. I'm not too afraid to ask or just shoot. I've got the camera around my neck, and I'm shooting, so folks know I'm there. I'm very visible. Others who are unobtrusive make a good case, too.

But if you have a 'likeness' of someone that you want to sell (that's not legitimate news), you need to get a release, at least in the US.

My best,

Mike

While ultimately the case was decided upon the statue of limitation, you should read the concurring opinion of the court in the matter of the case. Start from paragraph 346 and finish 348. It deliberates precisely on the problems of what is considered commercial and art and under what circumstances one requires a model release form. That's why I mentioned this.

This case's main arguments are mainly based on freedom of expression vs freedom of religion. And the use of one's likeness commercially without their consent.

if you were to make a case based solely on the grounds of privacy concerns, you would have a very tough time winning it on the grounds that your privacy was intruded. In a public space such as a side walk, no reasonable person can expect to have privacy.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4191608988879949331&q=Nussenzweig+v.+diCorcia&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33

"But if you have a 'likeness' of someone that you want to sell (that's not legitimate news), you need to get a release, at least in the US."

Yes, but the lines are blurred if what you are selling isn't a widely distributed product.

"The publication of plaintiff's portrait in both the popular press and art media confirms that the image is "a matter of legitimate public interest to readers" so as to bring its use within the newsworthiness exception to the privacy statute."

Now the "commercial" use applies only in this particular case, depending on another person's circumstances and how they decide to go about selling their art will result in different opinion of the court.

My main argument here is this:

You have no privacy in a public place (there are exceptions). Thus you shouldn't expect it.

"There's a real difference in Gilden and just about anyone else."

The only difference between Gilden and other street photographers is of two scopes.

1. Your philosophy of a street photography. Some argue that street photographer should only be an observer and never interact, instigate, alter etc a scene as Gilden does by provoking people's expressions by getting in their face.

2. How rude you want to be to random people.

Street photographers generally would not consider using their photographs in a true commercial sense.

Exhibitions in galleries and catalogs are under the umbrella of "art" and is generally not seen as a commercial activity as far as I know. Though one could argue that it is.

Hi poster,

One more thing...

In the US (and you sort of have to make that distinction) journalists don't protect the privacy of the paper (that was not what I was referring to - the guidelines were simply rules to follow published by the organization), but laws. As an example, the First Amendment doesn't protect our speech from a newspaper (it can censor whoever it wants), but from the government, who has no say in prohibiting speech - as long as it isn't stupid speech as in someone yelling 'fire' in a theater.

Gilden's art, offensive as I personally find it, would have to have some of the subjects complain and file suit in court to stop it from being shown. Moreover, the complainants would have to show damages. That would be a long row for anyone to hoe.

Street photography is its on thing. I've done some of it. I'm not too afraid to ask or just shoot. I've got the camera around my neck, and I'm shooting, so folks know I'm there. I'm very visible. Others who are unobtrusive make a good case, too.

But if you have a 'likeness' of someone that you want to sell (that's not legitimate news), you need to get a release, at least in the US.

My best,

Mike

Hi poster,

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I really was comparing Gilden to just about anyone else, reporters was one example.

Your case, Nussenzweig v. diCorcia failed for timeliness. The case was filed after the statue of limitations.

It wasn't for the use of the persons' likeness.

My best.

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,

There's a real difference in Gilden and just about anyone else.

For example, like it or not, reporters are your eyes on the scene, they represent you. In the US, we count on them to tell us 'what happened'. We might not get to pick who we want, but that sort of the way it is. Each paper and news service has a guide they follow that lays out privacy rules and small papers often follow the AP or one of the larger paper's guidelines. Failure to do that is really, really bad for the reporter.

Individual artists don't have to do that, but then, they _usually_ don't make their living making asses of themselves. Gilden's Freedom of Expression doesn't allow him to make money using others' likenesses for profit which is an interesting business. I wonder if he's ever been called to task on that.

Anyway, my best,

Mike

I don't really understand what are you trying to say. Why are you comparing him to a news reporter? photojournalist has not only privacy rules of the paper but also of the law. Street photographer is not bound by the rules of objectivity or the guidelines of the paper. He is bound by the laws of privacy. Right now shooting on the street is deemed to be free of privacy.( there are exceptions).

He is not a reporter but an artist, and as such he can sell his art even if your face is in it. Look up Nussenzweig v. diCorcia for more info.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,

There's a real difference in Gilden and just about anyone else.

For example, like it or not, reporters are your eyes on the scene, they represent you. In the US, we count on them to tell us 'what happened'. We might not get to pick who we want, but that sort of the way it is. Each paper and news service has a guide they follow that lays out privacy rules and small papers often follow the AP or one of the larger paper's guidelines. Failure to do that is really, really bad for the reporter.

Individual artists don't have to do that, but then, they _usually_ don't make their living making asses of themselves. Gilden's Freedom of Expression doesn't allow him to make money using others' likenesses for profit which is an interesting business. I wonder if he's ever been called to task on that.

Anyway, my best,

Mike

Agreed- the fact that Gilden didn't get his face pummeled in by all the New Yorkers he pissed off really surprises me. New Yorkers hate people getting into your face.

Hi all,

There's a real difference in Gilden and just about anyone else.

For example, like it or not, reporters are your eyes on the scene, they represent you. In the US, we count on them to tell us 'what happened'. We might not get to pick who we want, but that sort of the way it is. Each paper and news service has a guide they follow that lays out privacy rules and small papers often follow the AP or one of the larger paper's guidelines. Failure to do that is really, really bad for the reporter.

Individual artists don't have to do that, but then, they _usually_ don't make their living making asses of themselves. Gilden's Freedom of Expression doesn't allow him to make money using others' likenesses for profit which is an interesting business. I wonder if he's ever been called to task on that.

Anyway, my best,

Mike

LOL. I just watched the video. What a jerk.

NikoDoby said:
Poster I'm sure you'd think differently if he were to ever put his lens in your face while you are walking down the street minding your own business. When you ask him why he took your picture all he'd say to you is, "F**k You! It's a public side walk! I can take your picture if I want to" and then he'd walk away. He would go on to make thousands of dollars off your image.

I'm sure Vivian Maier wouldn't have done it that way. She'd probably start a conversation with you after taking your photo or at least smile at you before walking away. At least that's what I get from her photos. But who knows maybe she'd give you the finger like all the other girls you wink at on the street :^P

So you don't want to feel like a cheap whore after somebody takes your picture and then "makes thousands of dollars" off it. Yeah he seems like an asshole and nobody I would want to meet, but his photography is one of its own. Yeah, I would feel like punching that guy after he would have intruded my little world of my own, while on the street. But if I was to punch an asshole everytime they intrude or wrong us, I would die of exhaustion. I bet each and everyone of us deals with one asshole everyday, unless you are one of these people who holds a grudge after somebody looked at you funny or wronged you in any other way, you tell them to take a hike and move on with your day. Bruce Gilden is no different he is a nuisance and that's it.

Anyway I agree that he is an asshole but despite that I like his photography. You definitively can "smell" the street after looking at one of his photos.

Poster I'm sure you'd think differently if he were to ever put his lens in your face while you are walking down the street minding your own business. When you ask him why he took your picture all he'd say to you is, "F**k You! It's a public side walk! I can take your picture if I want to" and then he'd walk away. He would go on to make thousands of dollars off your image.

I'm sure Vivian Maier wouldn't have done it that way. She'd probably start a conversation with you after taking your photo or at least smile at you before walking away. At least that's what I get from her photos. But who knows maybe she'd give you the finger like all the other girls you wink at on the street :^P

Hi,

I'm kind of with Niko. He seems more of an a hole, intrusive. He's doing this for _his benefit_. He's making his _art_ at _every one else's expense_. That, at the least, is rude.

I'm not even sure I like what he does - that's anyone's prerogative. What little I've seen, seems derisive and contemptuous.

My best,

Mike

I used to look down on Bruce Gilden for his style. But the more i look at his photography the more i like it. It's my guilty pleasure. Say what you will but it's not like he walks around with a huge telephoto lens shooting pictures of pretty girls walking around in skimpy clothes. He shoots "characters"as he would put it and i like it. He shoots with a wide lens to be inthe middle of the action. Can't be in the middle of the action without being in people's faces.

ohhh the earlier comments make sense now.

Here is a video of Bruce Gilden for those who have no idea who he is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8&feature=player_embedded

He's a big A-hole if you ask me. He personifies the stereotype of creepy old man with a camera.

I think we should make the distinction between two different kinds of street photography. The thing Bruce does conflicts with what I think is the entire point with photographing on the street: you go out into the world you can't change to see what it's like, catch scenes on the street. Bruce just comes into peoples faces and captures their reaction to him. He totally interferes with the scene and in a way controls it, no different from what a studio photographer could do to his model.
The 'real' street photography for me is the kind where you try to minimize your interaction with the people and the scene. Naturally some portraits by Maier would have required her to ask the person to pose, but she must've asked them in a friendly manner, not by sticking a frigging camera in their face first.

Super Shooter said:
I'm not really a fan of street photography. That's because I imagine Bruce Gilden jumping into people's faces with a camera and flash. But Vivian's photography is more than just portraits of random people on the street. Her photos put me into a serene scene amongst the chaos of a busy city street. Very different then the force fed pictures of other so-called street photographers.

I totally disagree with you. Not every photographer needs or wants to post on Facebook, Flickr, or the Photo-A-Day thread to seek reassurances that they are a good photographer. The fact that see didn't develop every single roll immediately after finishing them doesn't mean she didn't care about her work. Shooting film is a longer process, obviously. I still have several rolls of film that for one reason or another I have yet to develop. She was a nanny so she probably didn't always have the time to get her film processed. Several years worth of shooting and those undeveloped rolls start to add up.

I love street photography. I enjoy looking at older examples of photography on streets I used to walk on and spotting differences. Most of the time if you look at photos from even 50 years ago it's completely unrecognizable.

I don't enjoy Bruce Gilden's photos either- he's the one with the Leica, right? That's too in your face and annoying. Not to mention stuff like that would get you arrested by all the super mommys. There's street photography and then there's street photography like Vivian Maier, I agree to that too.

I'm not really a fan of street photography. That's because I imagine Bruce Gilden jumping into people's faces with a camera and flash. But Vivian's photography is more than just portraits of random people on the street. Her photos put me into a serene scene amongst the chaos of a busy city street. Very different then the force fed pictures of other so-called street photographers.

bmxdad said:
she did not care much about sharing her work or even looking at her own work, matter of fact 30% of her work was newer developed.

I totally disagree with you. Not every photographer needs or wants to post on Facebook, Flickr, or the Photo-A-Day thread to seek reassurances that they are a good photographer. The fact that see didn't develop every single roll immediately after finishing them doesn't mean she didn't care about her work. Shooting film is a longer process, obviously. I still have several rolls of film that for one reason or another I have yet to develop. She was a nanny so she probably didn't always have the time to get her film processed. Several years worth of shooting and those undeveloped rolls start to add up.

Just saw this and I'm still totally amazed. Her captures had such an incredibly pure feel to them. So tragic as well that only 2 years or so after her death her work gets recognized. It's great though that this guy is investing so much of his time into this. Makes you think how many boxes full of photographic gold are still out there in some attics, not having been passed on to the right hands yet...

The odd thing about her is that she most have liked the trill off taking the pictures, she did not care much about sharing her work or even looking at her own work, matter of fact 30% of her work was newer developed.

Pete

vidrazor said:
>>I have mixed feelings about Maloof benefiting from her photography. Yes, now that he bought her stuff he has the right to distribute her work, but that's sort of like getting paid for nothing. He didn't work for any of it.<<

That's not really true. If you watch the video on that page you realize how much of himself and his own money he's devoted to all of her work. Of course he stands to benefit from it but it's obvious that's not the only reason he's doing this. Frankly I think he should benefit from it, if it weren't for him, no one would have ever seen her absolutely gorgeous work. It's a bittersweet story about her, but I guess she chose to be alone and keep all this stuff to herself. It's too bad he never got to meet her.

True, those are valid points. I did watch the video, he seems to be a nice guy, it's just that he did none of the actual photography.

But you're right, he did put a lot of money and his own time into it.

>>I have mixed feelings about Maloof benefiting from her photography. Yes, now that he bought her stuff he has the right to distribute her work, but that's sort of like getting paid for nothing. He didn't work for any of it.<<

That's not really true. If you watch the video on that page you realize how much of himself and his own money he's devoted to all of her work. Of course he stands to benefit from it but it's obvious that's not the only reason he's doing this. Frankly I think he should benefit from it, if it weren't for him, no one would have ever seen her absolutely gorgeous work. It's a bittersweet story about her, but I guess she chose to be alone and keep all this stuff to herself. It's too bad he never got to meet her.