Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia

Last updated

Nussenzweig v. diCorcia is a decision by the New York Supreme Court in New York County, holding that a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs. [1]

Contents

Persons involved in lawsuit

Erno Nussenzweig

Erno Nussenzweig (born 1922) is a retired diamond merchant from Union City, New Jersey. Nussenzweig was represented in this lawsuit by attorney Jay Goldberg. [2] [1]

Philip-Lorca diCorcia

Philip-Lorca diCorcia (born 1951) is an artist and photographer who shows with the Pace/MacGill Gallery in New York City. DiCorcia was represented in this lawsuit by Lawrence Barth of the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in Los Angeles, California. [2] [1]

Photograph

The photograph was taken by diCorcia in Times Square in Manhattan. The images were exhibited at Pace/MacGill Gallery from September 6, 2001 to October 13, 2001. Pace/MacGill then published them in a book of diCorcia's work titled Heads. [3] DiCorcia created ten limited edition prints of each photograph in the book and they were sold for US$20,000 to US$30,000 each. [2]

Lawsuit

In 2005, Nussenzweig learned of the photograph and filed a lawsuit, claiming that diCorcia and Pace/MacGill had violated his privacy rights under Sections 50 and 51 of New York's Civil Rights Law and that, as a Klausenburg Orthodox Jew, such a display would violate the Commandment in Torah against graven images. New York law prohibits the use of a person's likeness, without consent, "for advertising or for purposes of trade." DiCorcia and Pace/MacGill argued that the photograph represented "artistic expression", and was protected under the 1st Amendment and that the statute of limitations had expired for bringing a lawsuit. On February 8, 2006 the court ruled in favor of diCorcia and Pace/MacGill Gallery and dismissed the lawsuit on both counts. In March 2007 [4] the decision was upheld by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. In November 2007 [5] the New York Court of Appeals upheld all previous decisions based on the statute of limitations and "artistic expression". [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The right of publicity, sometimes referred to as personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of one's identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases, such as Roe v. Wade, had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. The Court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

Nan Goldin American photographer

Nancy Goldin is an American photographer. Her work often explores LGBT bodies, moments of intimacy, the HIV crisis, and the opioid epidemic. Her most notable work is The Ballad of Sexual Dependency (1986), which documents the post-Stonewall gay subculture and Goldin's family and friends. She lives and works in New York City, Berlin, and Paris.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

Street photography, also sometimes called candid photography, is photography conducted for art or enquiry that features unmediated chance encounters and random incidents within public places. Although there is a difference between street and candid photography, it is usually subtle with most street photography being candid in nature and some candid photography being classifiable as street photography. Street photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. Though people usually feature directly, street photography might be absent of people and can be of an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Barbara Nitke is an American art photographer who specializes in the subject of human sexual relations. She has worked extensively in the porn and BDSM communities.

Peter MacGill is an American gallerist, curator, and art historian. MacGill is President of the Pace/MacGill Gallery, which opened in 1983 on East 57th Street in New York City.

Philip-Lorca diCorcia is an American photographer, living in New York City. He teaches at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

Malerie Marder is an American photographer and artist who lives and works in Los Angeles, California.

<i>Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the claimant, Pascale Claude Aubry, brought an action against Éditions Vice-Versa for publishing a photo taken of her in public. She claimed the photographing was a violation of her right to privacy under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that under Quebec law a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject.

The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) is a civil rights organization in the United States. Founded in November 1951 as the New York affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, it is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan organization with nearly 50,000 members across New York State.

Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

The Pace Gallery is an American contemporary and modern art gallery with 9 locations worldwide. It was founded in Boston by Arne Glimcher in 1960. His son, Marc Glimcher, is now president and CEO. Pace Gallery operates in New York, London, Hong Kong, Palo Alto, Geneva, Seoul, East Hampton, and Palm Beach.

Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v. Blacksmith (1857) and its companion case of New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble (1858). The New York courts held that the 1788 Phelps and Gorham Purchase did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, one of the provisions of which prohibits purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government, and that the Seneca Nation of New York was barred by the state statute of limitations from challenging the transfer of title. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of lower court ruling because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs in the trial court, respondents in the Supreme Court, were several parties who had obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the state-owned Central Bank of Iran. The initial plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses against the execution against the account, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress included a section within a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and essentially abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977. The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff. This ruling affirmed a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. It is also noteworthy for resolving a circuit split regarding a major consumer protection law.

McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court held that the 3-year statute of limitations for a fabrication of evidence civil lawsuit under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act begins to run when the criminal case ends in the plaintiff's favor.

Guam v. United States was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with a dispute on fiscal responsibility for environmental and hazardous cleanup of the Ordot Dump created by the United States Navy on the island of Guam in the 1940s, which Guam then ran after becoming a territory in 1950 until the landfill's closure in 2011. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Guam had filed its lawsuit to recover a portion of cleanup costs for the landfill from the United States government in a timely manner, allowing their case to proceed.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia (February 2006)". New York Supreme Court . Retrieved 2011-12-05.
  2. 1 2 3 Gefter, Philip (March 16, 2006). "The Theater of the Street, the Subject of the Photograph". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-08-19.
  3. DiCorcia, Philip-Lorca (2001). Heads. Göttingen: Steidl. ISBN   3-88243-441-4 . Retrieved 2008-08-19.
  4. "Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia (March 2007)". New York Supreme Court . Retrieved 2015-08-04.
  5. "Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia (November 2007)". New York Supreme Court . Retrieved 2015-08-04.