This could be an expensive photograph...

This could be an expensive photograph...

5 posts
15 Jan 2014
StreetModel
Photographer
StreetModel
It says in the article that the photographer hadn't made any money from the photograph...

I bet it is worth something now!
Posted 15 Jan 2014
xtiggerx
Photographer
xtiggerx
Its such a iconic building and to argue others took similar photos arent a get out of the court case excuse, maybe the fact he is a fashion photographer and has money, rather than a lucky 'tourist' who took images on his phone who does have money was maybe the reason the owners have done this...Why has he his name on the bbc image if he hasnt made money from the episode?...


Posted 15 Jan 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
xtiggerx

Why has he his name on the bbc image if he hasnt made money from the episode?...


The BBC have simply watermarked the image with his name to acknowledge he is the copyright holder.  It has no bearing on any potential financial transaction between the beeb and himself.
Posted 15 Jan 2014
Preime
Photographer
Preime
I hope the courts do the right thing and boot this lawsuit out since it doesn't have a leg to stand on. It is legal for women to be topless in public in New York so the "think of the children" argument is null and void and as for shooting without permission, aside from arguing that it isn't a commercial shoot (although going by the photographers previous work that may not be the case) they can simply refuse to grant him a location release making it impossible for him to use the photos as well as eject him from the premise.

Posted 16 Jan 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join