The photographer is A victim. But like the internet hype surrounding this bullshit chooses to ignore, as you any many other people either biased by being a photographer, or because people are genuinely biased about companies being evil, he had no permission to resell those likenesses anyways.
Why does everyone choose to ignore the fact this jackass tried to sell out street photography, for which pick up pretty much any book on the subject in any of the hundreds of outlets in NYC and read the legalities of such (I have 3 books myself on this) , for which he totally fucks over the people he photographed "for his blog." He had a say to SAY NO, and THIS IS WHY. Now he's bitching because he not only had the photos stolen, he didn't get the "more money" he wanted. again
Obviously you didn't read my post. I'm not justifying DKNY. They stole images. We don't know why. And I'm pretty sure it was a mistake. Designers are usually better than most people about legalities of image use. Not only am I a designer, I was in a relationship with someone who did store displays for a living. I have a good idea of the process.
It's like the drug dealer taking drug buyer to court for getting ripped off. I have no sympathy for someone getting crying screwed over doing something unethical.
What he is doing is "Bitch by internet - I am the victim" He's totally ignoring his wrong, as is everyone who is "Wow.. those corporate fatcats at DKNY must pay with their lives!!!" on the net, and not considering the faults fo the photographer's bargaining, inability to see his wrong, and reluctance to apologize.
By him accepting any compensation, EVEN if it goes to charity, is essentially bargaining the use of those photos. Which means, he is then liable for any litigation of the subjects that do not want to be represented in those displays. Giving the YMCA money means nothing, other then his acceptance to allow use. And it's not his decision. It is the decision of the subjects of the photos, who have to grant permission in written form. Period. Why is this not being considered? Because people are biased in their assessment of the ethics of the situation. Like I said.. this is a drug-dealer-getting-ripped-off case. I have little sympathy.
He was wronged. He should contact them and get the art taken down. He shouldn't' make a contract for him or for charity. He has no right. If he did, he welcomes any lawsuits of the 300+ people in those photos. Smart? Ethical? This thread is about ethics, isn't it?
In my case, I have firsthand experience:
1. Issuing takedown requests of unauthorized use of my work
2. Requesting (and receiving) compensation for unauthorized use of my work.
3. A travel organization not paying for photos they asked to buy.
So I know how it feels to have work used. But never did I attempt to sell commercially any likeness of someone that did not give me permission. I even have waivers signed for photos of people I submitted for Capture Rochester, including my sister signing for my nephew's photos.
I have never sold a photo of someone without a signed waver fo that individual or their guardian. In fact, that's the standard of the industry. And that's where we start looking at the moral decisions of this situation. We don't start where the person is bitching and moaning.. start and the beginning and see where the ethics began to breech. Right there. When someone who makes a blog for journalism and hobby starts to sell out to DKNY and doesn't THINK that perhaps.. him pressing a shutter doesn't turn MR and MRS Smith on the Street into a money-making yet free set of models for him to profit from. A simple "No, there are no waivers" would have ended all of this. But I guess whoever bitches louder on the internet wins.
In fact, I have some stellar photos I made of the Sterling Renaissance Festival, that I not only don't put up for sale... I did not sell it to people requesting to buy prints of it... why? because as a photographer, I have to operate my business legally and without subjecting myself to litigation. Despite those performers granting permission of their individual likeness by performing, the Sterling Renaissance Festival does not authorize people to sell photos of their property or employees. How do I know that? Because I take the time to figure that out before I work out how I'm going to price something. Also, because I'm not a complete moral fucktard like that photographer.
In the case of some random travel agency taking my photos. I have much more legal ground to stand on.
1. As a competing travel website, I generate revenue (although small) from my photos.
2. I am well aware that I am due compensation for photos that I own all rights to and I know the fair market value of those properties.
3. I don't pursue compensation for photos I don't own the rights to distribute commercially. I pursue them to be taken down.
4. You won't see me bitching about how I was trying to sell photos of people I didn't get permission from to the travel agency and they didn't offer enough. WAHHHHH. :'( Because I don't pull that bullshit. As someone who would never NEVER want someone using my image to endorse a product.
Anyways, keep thinking the photographer did no wrong. Ignore he started it. Ignore he takes no responsibility. Ignore he shows no sympathy for anyone but himself and YMCA. What a great guy.
I wonder how they are going to track down those people shot walking in the background or were shot as they passed by and were not tagged in his photos (he tags the people he talks to who happen to have FB accounts, but this does not represent all the people represented in his blog or in the misprinted DKNY ads). That "they were going to get waivers" thing is bullshit and he knows it. 
And yes, I did pick a feet shot because I know how much you love them! 
