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
