Morally, I don’t know. What gives someone a moral right for compensation, when they appear in a work of art? Models get paid for their time and effort when they pose for artistic works… But street photographers (generally) don’t compensate their subjects either. Their likenesses were used, but they aren’t “performing” in any sense of the word. All of the artistic merit of the photo (if any) is provided by the photographer, and it’s the artistic merit that is providing the worth to the work.
Having said that, I absolutely agree that it’s a dick move. None of the photos I saw seemed particularly creepy, to me, but the process of taking pictures of people in their houses from the darkness of your own place is creepy behaviour, no matter how you frame it. I don’t really find his images compelling or interesting, and I find the whole project a little bit… Pretentious? I’m not sure that’s exactly the word I’m thinking of (I’m tired!) but roughly along those lines, any way. So yeah, I guess I’m glad that there was no legal action (setting bad precedents, etc), but at the same time I kinda hope that nobody buys any of this work, either.
Read, “For Us, The Living” Heinlein illustrates this situation quite eloquently in literary form. He tackled this subject in 1938. The book was published in 2003. Still relevant subject matter.
Presuming you mean a book publisher, it still counts as an artistic work. It only moves into “commercial use” when it starts being put into advertisements for products, etc. At least, that’s my understanding of the law around it, in general. Some more good reading on likeness rights here (see the “protection of creative works” section). It primarily centres around first amendment protections of artistic works. That’s where the “it’s art, not an invasion of privacy” part comes into this case as well - because it’s a “transformative work” (kinda meh in my opinion, as I’ve stated, but whatever). If these were just straight up portraits of these people with no other transformative nature intended, the artist would have much less of a case.
Of course, I’m coming at this from a layman’s persepective, not a lawyer’s, but it seems to be the established law surrounding this type of case right now.
My point is that when it comes to strangers’ children, in many locales it IS a legal requirement to get permission. You can argue whether or not the laws involved are Big Brother-like or not, but they are there and are probably the best legal way to get some sort of recompense from this guy who is making money without paying his unwilling models for his work.
It’s like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. Let the laws work for you if they’re all you’ve got.
Did this artist get a gallery showing at least partly because he had these particular photos in his portfolio? Just getting a showing like that puts you on a new level of professionalism as an artist, and allows you to charge more for all of your works.
Actually yes, that happens all the time. Rape, other violent crimes, or just property crimes: it’s quite common for a crime (committed by white people, usually) to end up with an out-of-court settlement and a signed non-disclosure statement instead of a verdict.
A victim agreeing to a settlement does not legally change a criminal violation into a civil one, it only suggests that they have been bribed into no longer seeking prosecution for a criminal act. If/when people are greedy enough to pursue cash instead of justice, then they are creating bad precedent. But this is a choice which victims evaluate and make themselves.
Does “financial gain” have to incorporate actual money? Doesn’t it include burnishing one’s reputation? Since that would imply greater financial gains to be made over time. Or would that just be considered “personal gain” or “professional gain” ?
Reputation is purely subjective, there is far from any consensus about what this exhibit means for the artist’s reputation. It is qualitative. There is no reason to presume what they may profess to or what they hope to get out of this.
I’m sorry, but the commenter said the man was a dick. That’s a moral judgement not subject to expertise. The following represents the entirety of the credentials required for me to think someone is a dick:
