[IP] more on Art trumps privacy? (better formating)
Begin forwarded message:
From: weisberg1@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: March 19, 2006 5:58:32 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: weisberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Art trumps privacy? (better formating)
Thanks for this very interesting discussion. Unfortunately, the
connection
between Nussenzweig's suit and his religion was omitted, perhaps putting
Mr. Nussenzweig in an unfair light. Here is the AP explanation
(reproduced
on WordWide Religious News)
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=20434&sec=35&con=4>:
Goldberg said his client's religion forbids, and he has a deep
conviction
against, reproducing his image by photography or other means
because of
the belief in the Second Commandment's prohibition against graven
images.
"It puts him in a disgraceful light within his community,'
Goldberg said.
"It violates the tenets of the particular religious sect to which he
belongs. He shouldn't be put in a position where people might think
he sold out for a few bucks."
There may be some significance to the fact that the objectionable
photo was
not of a scene nor a crowd, but of the subjects head
the photo of Emo Nussenzweig -- a head shot showing him sporting a
scraggly white beard, a black hat and a black coat -- ...the
photographer took...surreptitiously near Times Square in 2001
and then
sold 10 prints of it at $20,000 to $30,000 each.
...The displayed photo of the 80-year-old Nussenzweig was about
3 feet
by 4 feet.
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/