tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post811274435135032235..comments2024-03-26T23:27:56.399-07:00Comments on B: CorrespondenceBlake Andrewshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-5665578955674655912021-10-19T10:07:09.104-07:002021-10-19T10:07:09.104-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Mozell R Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284108670308569081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-20815982087259634242013-12-08T22:54:00.229-08:002013-12-08T22:54:00.229-08:00So happy to be given a privilege to post a comment...So happy to be given a privilege to post a comment here. You have a wonderful site. Thank you for the effort to publish this.<br /><br />www.gofastek.comBooks and Manualhttp://www.gofastek.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-16235629279118098532013-02-10T07:26:15.167-08:002013-02-10T07:26:15.167-08:00Pepeye, why you said this photos can hurt people? ...Pepeye, why you said this photos can hurt people? I don't find any defamatory issue here. For me this case is a matter of ex couple fight, is really a personal issue. I like some photos, I don't like others but Is not a denounce or an attack to someone. Is more, the feelings that left me the photos are positive feelings.Hernan Zentenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10827574143876112004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-25101162453738068682013-02-09T03:43:11.101-08:002013-02-09T03:43:11.101-08:00This is a fascinating issue and it deserves our at...This is a fascinating issue and it deserves our attention for lots of reasons. A couple of minor points I don't see mentioned yet are:<br /><br />1. The introductory text of the book says: "It exists through collaboration with Pam..." The "it" in the statement probably refers to the body of work rather than the book. To publish this work, with that statement, against Pam's wishes, seems quite wrong. I think Pam is entitled to oppose the publication for *whatever* reasons she may have. <br /><br /><br />2. It seems that the intent is to publish a book that would presumably be available for sale. I'm not a lawyer, but I think publication for sale qualifies as commercial use and would require a signed consent form. <br /><br />Some other observations...<br />-Jin's commentary is thoughtful and provides a compelling analogy. <br /><br />-The Larry Rivers film is disturbing in every dimension. I think this situation is very different, especially in the comparison of how one might define the "consent" that was originally given by the subjects. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /> John Kinghttp://johnking.zenfolio.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-26582707466194749262013-02-07T11:53:33.904-08:002013-02-07T11:53:33.904-08:00Jin Zhu has posted some interesting thoughts on th...Jin Zhu has posted some interesting thoughts on this here:<br /><br />http://www.killeryellow.com/blog/2013/02/07/consent/Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-21988929345170529642013-02-07T08:19:33.618-08:002013-02-07T08:19:33.618-08:00Jim Goldberg has a book on/about his ex-wife which...Jim Goldberg has a book on/about his ex-wife which has not and will not be published for legal reasons. Maybe speak to him, but I know he would publish it if he could.China Platenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-66306825589964633082013-02-07T07:53:52.745-08:002013-02-07T07:53:52.745-08:00Here is a link to the Larry Rivers situation I ref...Here is a link to the Larry Rivers situation I referenced in the article. Some similarities, but also different because it involves children:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/arts/design/08rivers.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=larry%20rivers&st=cse&Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-37148767405450455962013-02-07T03:30:36.409-08:002013-02-07T03:30:36.409-08:00No, of course not. Still, I can understand that ha...No, of course not. Still, I can understand that having a body of work like that and not being able to share it has to be painful. He basically has lost any right he had over the photographs if he decides to take her negative answer to publish them. Not justifying him, just saying.Juanjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484044097475802903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-38081551337148721942013-02-06T20:57:06.293-08:002013-02-06T20:57:06.293-08:00Fair enough, plenty of artists are dicks. But does...Fair enough, plenty of artists are dicks. But does being an artist excuse being a dick? That makes it OK to hurt people for the sake of art? Does art make the immoral act moral?PE Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184021523492306934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-70347763998231926192013-02-06T15:35:12.496-08:002013-02-06T15:35:12.496-08:00That's exactly what I meant with my post pepey...That's exactly what I meant with my post pepeye, the right to do it vs the choosing to do it. But I also agree with Jon U.N. Being a dick has nothing to do with artistic capabilities, world of art is full with examples of bad behaviour (ethics, moral as described in a society) and great art. Properly full. I guess every one draws its own line in moral and ethics and just stick to that, it's really a blurry one. <br /><br />Talking just about me, if that counts, I would draw the line here based on her current depression. Knowing how little things can affect someones psique in that kind of mental state or illness (based on experiences in my own family) I would not think about it and just not publish them. But that's only based in my own experience.Juanjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484044097475802903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-10200091220041645032013-02-06T13:39:15.025-08:002013-02-06T13:39:15.025-08:00Rubbish. A lot of great artists and thinkers were ...Rubbish. A lot of great artists and thinkers were dicks. I'll even go out on a limb here and say that most of them were. A person's moral qualities has nothing do do with his/her ability to produce great works.Jon U.N.http://itwasherephotography.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-35432852164209735392013-02-06T12:33:12.910-08:002013-02-06T12:33:12.910-08:00ANONYMOUS DO YOU DO PRO-BONO w0RK/ IM STuckiN LABO...ANONYMOUS DO YOU DO PRO-BONO w0RK/ IM STuckiN LABOUR CAMP 7 KILOMITER easT OF NERYUNGRI <br />Pleas CONTACT MESERGEI POPOVnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-69638667506176953852013-02-06T12:00:56.155-08:002013-02-06T12:00:56.155-08:00If there is no model release, don't do it. Do ...If there is no model release, don't do it. Do not fake a model release--it can land you in jail. Even if there is a model release, judges have been willing to find sensitive images outside the bounds of the release--no matter how all-inclusive you may think it is.<br /><br />She's apparently said no. It's not only about copyright (I don't know why photographers get hung up on the copyright question when it is not the only legal right at issue), it is about rights of privacy AND rights of publicity. Possibly even public dissemination of private facts. <br /><br />I am a lawyer, licensed in California for almost 20 years, and before that I was a pro photographer for about that long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-75000147576150645522013-02-06T10:48:52.414-08:002013-02-06T10:48:52.414-08:00The fact that we've been able to look at these...The fact that we've been able to look at these photos means they've been "published" as the law would define that term. I think that's a non-issue here. Slander/libel are "false light" torts and there no indication that these photos depict her in a false manner (i.e. her head on the body of a water buffalo with a representation that that's what she really looks like) that would be actionable.<br /><br />The really issue issue here is over the difference between having the right to publish these photos verses choosing to do so when it will potentially hurt someone he once cared about and who, when asked, said no to his request. <br /><br />An "artist" who behaves like a dick is just a dick who thinks he's an artist.PE Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184021523492306934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-73671413511152876302013-02-06T09:03:27.672-08:002013-02-06T09:03:27.672-08:00'Does it count as "publishing"? Will...'Does it count as "publishing"? Will Pam see it?'. And I would add, would it be valid if she does not seen it even when she's not keen to accept this "publishing". Yes, many interesing issues here with equal interesting and difficult answers. Interesting post Blake, really interesting.<br /><br />Juanjo.Juanjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484044097475802903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-14205934636240904772013-02-06T08:55:16.940-08:002013-02-06T08:55:16.940-08:00Yes, Juanjo. The blog post was a deliberate attemp...Yes, Juanjo. The blog post was a deliberate attempt to push and blur that fuzzy line. Does it count as "publishing"? Will Pam see it? Who knows. I think also the format of the post raises similar questions of privacy. It's written as a window into a private email chain. I asked Michael's permission, but what if he changes his mind later? Many interesting issues here...<br /><br />Anyway, I got this note today from Carolyn Wright, photo attorney. She provided a few helpful links.<br /><br />Hi, Blake.<br /><br />Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, my schedule is slammed right now with our client's cases so that I won't be able to take the time to fully understand the issues. My blog entries here may be helpful to you: <br /><br />http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=39 <br /><br />http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=430<br /><br />http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=364<br /><br />Best,<br />CarolynBlake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-67933677380062811722013-02-06T08:41:30.526-08:002013-02-06T08:41:30.526-08:00For me the issue here is only moral. As spotted by...For me the issue here is only moral. As spotted by pepeye he felt the need to ask her, but is not going to accept her negative unless is well explained by her argumenting the reasons why she does not want this body of work to be published. And further more, something that intrigues me is the fact that exposing all this in a blog post, including the dummy of the book, mails with her thought on the case, to an audience, is not another kind of publishing, ergo, not taking in consideration her wish? <br /><br />Not saying that the blog post is wrong, on the contrary, it just made me thought about all this, and a lot of questions of difficult answer came to my mind.<br /><br />Regards, Juanjo.Juanjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01484044097475802903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-77993589453491744452013-02-06T00:28:57.174-08:002013-02-06T00:28:57.174-08:00In fact, there seems to be several separate questi...In fact, there seems to be several separate questions hidden within this discussion:<br /><br />1) The legal question of who owns the rights to a photograph and thus the right to make decisions concerning its publication.<br /><br />2) The moral question of a) the content of the photograph, and b) the treatment of this content. Is there some wrong in what is depicted? Would it be right to publish it?<br /><br />3) The aesthetic question of the artistic value or quality of the photograph. Is it any good? Is it worth publishing?<br /><br />4) The question of publication: To publish or not to publish?<br /><br />In fact, before deciding any of these questions, a more fundamental question appears, namely which of question 1) through 3) should be taken into consideration when deciding upon question 4). In my honest opinion, only 3) should have any bearing upon 4), at least ideally.<br /><br />This makes the decision easy, at least for me. I have looked through the photographs and find them beautifully touching, especially as a collected set and with the context in place. So I would say: Publish the Hell out of her.Jon U.N.http://itwasherephotography.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-16019831435123500872013-02-05T17:48:53.309-08:002013-02-05T17:48:53.309-08:00As a lawyer, I can tell you that libel is a non-is...As a lawyer, I can tell you that libel is a non-issue here. I think he probably has all the rights he needs to publish if he wants to without risk.<br /><br />What puzzles me is that he clearly consulted her about using these photos. He must have, at some level, felt he should do so before proceeding. Why did he bother to ask her if he wasn't prepared to respect her answer? He didn't get the answer he wanted. So now its f' her, on with my art? Not cool.PE Prestonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184021523492306934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-83154962744252949402013-02-05T08:43:51.163-08:002013-02-05T08:43:51.163-08:00Good questions, Anonymous. I've referred them ...Good questions, Anonymous. I've referred them and the entire post to a lawyer specializing in photography issues. I'll post a response here if I get one.Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-7416715902501431892013-02-04T20:22:20.785-08:002013-02-04T20:22:20.785-08:00would be interested to know from lawyer(which I a...would be interested to know from lawyer(which I am not)... though copyright prob not an issue.... whether you may be at risk for libel damages if publishing would be detrimental to career or mental well being of your ex (eg job sensitivity or political aspirations, etc), especially if she can argue that their intent was personal as a married couple or at most gallery display, ie before the internet.... your lawyer , though in the right, may not want to take that to a jury and you both might have to pursue settlement... could get dirty and juries are human........Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com