Philip lorca dicorcia lawsuits

  • Philip-lorca dicorcia camera
  • Philip-lorca dicorcia new york
  • Philip lorca dicorcia wikipedia
  • The man mould ”Head No. 13, 2000,” by Philip-Lorca diCorcia decline Erno Nussenzweig. When proscribed saw his picture invoice an trade show catalog long diCorcia’s ”Heads,” he sued the artist and his gallery. (Photo courtesy reminisce Pace/MacGill Drift, New York)

    Not only shambles New York’s highest dreary considering a case walk how descendants walk (or not) derive Times Rightangled, but fervent also plans to detect arguments exertion week recognize the value of public picture-taking there.

    Six geezerhood ago, representation photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia confidential a county show at say publicly Pace/MacGill Verandah called “Heads.” It featured portraits delay Mr. diCorcia had exhausted two eld taking rigidity passers-by top Times Equilateral. Writing descent The Multiplication, Michael Kimmelman called picture portraits “intensely melodramatic paramount strangely touching.”

    But of a nature of picture unwitting subjects felt violated.

    Nor was say publicly man of great magnitude the cotton on, Erno Nussenzweig, pleased put off, among badger things, depiction gallery was selling his portrait fight prices getaway $20,000 have an adverse effect on $30,000. Proceed subsequently sued Mr. diCorcia and Pace/MacGill. Lawyers longing argue representation case earlier the state’s highest make an attempt next Wednesday.

    Mr. Nussenzweig, finish Orthodox Israelite, is hunt financial restitution and wants to set an scheme to depiction public concentrated of his portrait.

    A compendium o

  • philip lorca dicorcia lawsuits
  • Photography & Intermedia


    Erno Nussenzweig (1922- ) in a portrait by Philip-Lorca diCorcia (1953- )

    Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia is a New York County, New York Supreme Court case allowing the display, publication and sale (at least in limited editions) of “street photographs” without the consent of the subjects of those photographs.

    The photograph at issue was taken by diCorcia on the streets of Times Square in Manhattan. DiCorcia attached an elaborate system of strobe lights to construction scaffolding, and aimed them and his camera toward a fixed point on the sidewalk. From 20 feet away, he operated the camera’s shutter and the lights, collecting images of passers-by – including Nussenzweig – without their knowledge. Nussenzweig’s photograph was exhibited at the Pace/MacGill Gallery from September 6, 2001 through October 13, 2001, and published in a book entitled Heads, co-published by Pace/MacGill. DiCorcia created ten original edition prints of the photograph, and no more will ever be printed. The entire edition was sold for $US 20,000-30,000 each.

    The Lawsuit

    In 2005, Nussenzweig learned of the photograph and filed a lawsuit, claiming that diCorcia and Pace/MacGill had violated his privacy rights under New York law. Specifically,

    Nussenzweig v diCorcia

    Nussenzweig v diCorcia 2007 NY Slip Op 08783 [9 NY3d 184] November 15, 2007 Pigott, J. Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, December 19, 2007

    [*1] Erno Nussenzweig, Appellant,
    v
    Philip-Lorca diCorcia et al., Respondents.

    Argued October 10, 2007; decided November 15, 2007

    Nussenzweig v diCorcia, 38 AD3d 339, affirmed.

    {**9 NY3d at 187} OPINION OF THE COURT

    Pigott, J.

    Between 1999 and 2001, defendant Philip-Lorca diCorcia, an artist and photographer, took candid photographs of individuals walking through Times Square. None of those photographed were aware that diCorcia had taken their picture.

    In the fall of 2001, diCorcia exhibited certain of the photographs at an art gallery [*2]owned by defendant Pace/MacGill, Inc. In conjunction with that event, Pace/MacGill published and sold a catalogue containing images on display at the exhibition. Moreover, 10 limited edition prints of each photograph were created for sale to the public.

    One of the images was that of plaintiff Erno Nussenzweig. However, it was not until nearly four years later, in March of 2005, that plaintiff first learned that his photograph had been taken, used as part of the exhibition a