[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 6 most recent journal entries recorded in
|Monday, February 20th, 2006|
Good News for Photographers
Some good news for photobloggers and fans of street photography: a Manhattan judge has ruled photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia was well within his rights to sell copies of this photograph of an Orthodox gentleman. The shot was taken as part of diCorcia's "Heads" project, which involved shooting pictures using a concealed camera. The Post reports: LINK
...Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische ruled that the head shot showing Nussenzweig, with a white beard, a black hat and a black coat, is art — even though the photographer took it surreptitiously near Times Square in 2001 and then sold 10 prints of it at $20,000 to $30,000 each...
...New York's right-to-privacy laws prohibit the use of someone's likeness for commercial purposes without the person's permission. But if the likeness is deemed to be art, the commerce restrictions do not apply.
This seems to reaffirm the right of photographers to take and sell pictures of people without getting signed waivers, as long as the purpose of the pictures is making art.
|Monday, May 23rd, 2005|
Today, the infamous ban on photography in New York's subways has been officially declared dead. The MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) will not go forward with the ban. This marks a great victory for artists, civil rights supporters, and the NYPD (which had originally requested the rule change).
The New York Daily is reporting the death of the proposal to ban photography in subways. An excerpt follows:
"In the wake of the public comments period, after consulting with the NYPD, which had originally requested the rule change, MTA NYC Transit will not go forward with the institution of a photo ban," TA spokesman Charles Seaton said.
Not having a ban will not hinder the NYPD's efforts to safeguard the city's vast transit system, Browne said.
Source: New York Daily News
|Wednesday, June 30th, 2004|
updated 28 CFR Part 75 // 18 U.S.C. 2257
In case you missed it, the DOJ is updating the record keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257.
"...Congress evidenced its concern for the exploitation of children by
pornographers in the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of
1988, one key provision of which requires producers of sexually
explicit matter to maintain certain records concerning the performers
to assist in monitoring the industry. See 18 U.S.C. 2257..."( full text of this itemCollapse )
|Friday, June 4th, 2004|
|Sunday, February 15th, 2004|
this is what i use for a model release, cobbled it together from stuff i'd found on the internet, and things i think should be in there.... but it hasn't been given any blessings by a lawyer or anything.... they usually want stuff like money or something... go fig....
since it's 3:30am and i need to be awake at 9 i'm not gonna preview and alla that stuff, so if when i hit post it looks like crap, sorry, but, you get the gist of the thing :)( cut for lengthCollapse )
blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah BLAH blah blah, read the community info thing, blah blah.