In a recent New York case of Erno Nussenzweig versus Philip-Lorca diCorcia, the judge ruled in favor of photographer Pilip-Lorca diCorcia, upholding his New York right to use and sell the image of Mr. Nussenzweig as an expression of art.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19phot.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=3507468ee27352da&ex=1143435600&emc=eta1

Lawrence Barth, Mr. diCorcia's attorney, comments, "What was at issue in this case was a type of use that hadn't been tested against First Amendment principles before — exhibition in a gallery; sale of limited edition prints; and publication in an artist's monograph, . . ."

I wonder how this would play in other parts of the country, since part of the case revolved around a New York law prohibiting the unauthorized use of someone's image for commercial purposes?

Was it significant that the edition of these prints was limited?

In New York or elsewhere, would one be prevented from displaying an image like this for sale on an artist's webpage? Having asked a local attorney in Portland, Oregon, he indicated that artist webpages are considered advertising for the artist.

Might the above ruling have been different if the photograph had been taken on private property with the permission of the owner? For example, architectural photographs often include images of many people recognizable in the photographs. Is it legally necessary to get their releases for publication? Assume that the architectural photographer has the owners' permission to take photos on the site.

I've wondered whether gallery or internet webpages could be construed as advertising, and whether they were considered sufficiently commercial to require releases from people recognizable in the photograph when they were taken in public places.