In 2001, Philip Lorca diCorcia set up an 'x' on spot on the floor in Times Square, rigged up a strobe on scaffolding pointing to the 'x' and took pictures of people's heads as they trudged about their business. In 2005, one of the now famous head image's subjects decided to sue diCorcia on the grounds of "severe mental anguish" (registration required, use bugmenot) and because it is outrageous to sell pictures of someone's face without telling and asking there permission.

These photographs apparently sell for $20,000, plus are reproduced in books and so on and have by artworld standards been financially sucesssful. I suspect because of this, Erno Nussenzweig, the plaintiff, would like to think of taking a photograph without someone's consent as "outrageous and unfair" (same link as above). This rationale, apart from often being one of the most puerile arguments against something, is something that I wither at the sound of. (I've yet to find any vested party using the word to mean anything other than 'to my advantage, speaking objectively'. Its not that I don't believe in fairness, I do, but I do believe that vested interests usually speak inordinately louder, with much greater frequency, and with the motivation that only an unbridled ego can provide. As such, I think the only way that fairness could be guaranteed to speak is without a speaker.)

Nussenzweig is also suing the gallery, the publisher and anybody else who might sold the prints of books.

So, apart from the possibly dubious motivations of the plaintif and the vultures under his employ, the question remains - what exactly has been done wrong here? I dont' know the law - and being bound by something that I'm ignorant of, surrounded by other who in the vast majority are in the same situation, doesn't sound like a great set up - and so I can't viably comment on the legality of the charges. But, surely the US justice system isn't so nuts as to allow this to become a precedent? As far as I know, the US legal system uses the constitution as the basic framework for legality, followed by court precendent if the constitution isn't relevent. (The British system is basically all precedent, I think, and the EU a frappuccinno mix of both). However, that doesn't stop the usual tabloid speculation that this could have massive impact on the rights of photographers, and I could be naive and/or stupid but I don't think that'll happen.

Here's what all the fuss is about.