http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/ Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:08:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-40325 Denis Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:34:27 +0000 http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/#comment-40325 I suggest that the reason for court ruling in favor of diCorcia was the fact that he used artificial lighting and overall artificial setup to produce the photo, which turned the simple "likeliness" into a "work of art". People don't buy such a photograph for $30K only because of a senior man's likeliness caught on them, but because of how it is caught - light, expression, framing - these have nothing to do with likeliness. IMHO, only with the artist's work. I suggest that the reason for court ruling in favor of diCorcia was the fact that he used artificial lighting and overall artificial setup to produce the photo, which turned the simple “likeliness” into a “work of art”. People don’t buy such a photograph for $30K only because of a senior man’s likeliness caught on them, but because of how it is caught – light, expression, framing – these have nothing to do with likeliness. IMHO, only with the artist’s work.

]]> http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-36141 Jason Windsor Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:52:41 +0000 http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/#comment-36141 The minute you sell a work of art, art and commerce have diverged. I guess what the court was deciding was how much commerce is permissable. But even then, they're only decided quantity, not cost. If he had sold 300,000 postcards at a dollar apiece, would it have then been commerce? Even though it was the same amount of money? The minute you sell a work of art, art and commerce have diverged. I guess what the court was deciding was how much commerce is permissable. But even then, they’re only decided quantity, not cost. If he had sold 300,000 postcards at a dollar apiece, would it have then been commerce? Even though it was the same amount of money?

]]> http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-36131 Joshua Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:35:27 +0000 http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/#comment-36131 They were limited edition (only 10, and never to be reprinted) so that is apparently considered <i>"art"</i> by the court, hence my closing statement; I find it odd that the court system is the one drawing the lines between art and commerce, especially when we're talking about $200,000-300,000 of art. They were limited edition (only 10, and never to be reprinted) so that is apparently considered “art” by the court, hence my closing statement; I find it odd that the court system is the one drawing the lines between art and commerce, especially when we’re talking about $200,000-300,000 of art.

]]> http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-36129 Jason Windsor Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:28:15 +0000 http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/#comment-36129 Awesome write-up. But I wonder why his selling them for $30k apiece didn't falling under "trade". Awesome write-up. But I wonder why his selling them for $30k apiece didn’t falling under “trade”.

]]> http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-36125 Patrick Born Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:18:31 +0000 http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2007/08/27/philip-lorca-dicorcia-photography-and-privacy-law/#comment-36125 Fascinating. Thanks. Fascinating. Thanks.

]]>