Here’s another high profile example of why we preach that obtaining property and location agreements is a wise practice. Photographer Allen Henson has been working on a photo project featuring topless women in public places. The New York Daily News and countless other media outlets have covered his exploits for obvious reasons – puns intended.
On August 9, 20013, Mr. Henson took to the world famous observation deck of the iconic Empire State Building to photograph a topless female model. While tourists of all ages presumably enjoyed countless views, there was one view they didn’t expect as Mr. Henson snapped away laboring on his self described art project.
The Daily News article can be read here.
CBSnews.com had a short article linked here, with a great quote where said “Henson says the view from atop the building is so breathtaking he didn’t think anyone noticed.” Yeah, right.
The Empire State Building, LLC gave Mr. Henson a booby prize for his actions in the form of a lawsuit. According to the Complaint filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Mr. Henson neither sought nor obtained the consent of the owners of this premier tourist destination to use its premises. Tourists were standing just a few feet from the model while she was posing.
We are not a bit surprised that The Empire State Building sued Mr. Henson seeking among other things, compensatory and punitive damages (a/k/a money) from the photographer. The formal complaint references well published building rules for use by photographers and alleges that the defendant engaged in impermissible and objectionable conduct on private property. There are allegations of trespassing and that the shoot generated negative publicity and caused a loss of business for this family attraction.
We are not predicting what the outcome of this legal case will be. We have no position on who is right or wrong. Rather we point out that Mr. Henson will likely need to at least, retain and pay legal counsel and risk suffering a judgment against him for money damages. The extent of his financial loss – if any – is as yet unknown. This could all have been avoided by obtaining a property or location agreement from the owners of the Empire State Building. Likely such agreement would never have been granted in this case.
Note that most location shoots do not include objectionable or controversial photography and that landowners generally have the right to regulate and control the activities and persons on their property. A clearly written release permits the photographer to sleep at night and not have to worry about paying a lawyer – or worse – a money judgment. Remember this real life incident the next time some wannabe lawyer opines on the web that property or location agreements are “not legally required”. Betcha none of those experts will be financially assisting Mr. Henson in this litigation.
#1 by Richard Priest on January 19, 2014 - 10:31 pm
The model and photographer involved have also inflicted damage on the public perception of other models and photographers such as myself, in a manner similar to how poachers affect the legitimate hunting community or street racers affect the automotive enthusiast community.
May they both learn an important lesson from this suit.
#2 by Edward C. Greenberg on January 20, 2014 - 1:41 pm
For decades I have bemoaned the failure of the photographic community to promote itself. Positive PR, self branding and good publicity lifts the financial status of all boats.
I am aware of the hundreds of excuses as to why a disparate group of artists, 99% of whom are sole proprietors, have failed to raised their collective profile for public consumption. While high end fashion photographers typically enjoy the public’s rapt attention and are paid accordingly, photojournalists and most other commercial shooters aren’t even on the public’s radar.
Yes, we know that it is time consuming enough just trying to make a living but it is my view that there would be an increased demand for professional photographers if the public were convinced that pro shooters bring something to the table that unpaid amateurs do not. Photographers simply can not compete against free.
Having had a client who was the narrator for one of the Empire State Building’s tourist attractions, I can tell you they spend both tons of money and time targeting “Jane and John America”, with our without kids. I’m not a bit surprised that they handed this case over to the lawyers.
There is no way to know whether this case will have any effect on the public’s view of professional photographers. We do know however, that it is a perfect case in point for the proposition that you should always get a property release or location agreement.
#3 by bill delorey on January 21, 2014 - 10:13 am
Looks to me like he wanted the adverse publicity in order to promote himself. I can’t for one second believe he thought ‘no one will notice’ a nude/topless model in a tourist spot.
Doesn’t excuse the idea he ‘forgot’ or “didn’t need” a release, he knew it would be denied. My personal take, he degraded the concept of professional conduct, whether he did it on purpose or out of ignorance.
Pingback: Have You Heard The One About The Vase and The Photographer? «