6 ms·

Legally speaking, the photographer is completely within his rights. The band is also within their rights to ban him from their shows because they disagree with

Legally speaking, the photographer is completely within his rights. The band is also within their rights to ban him from their shows because they disagree with the way he uses his legal authority. Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. If you came up, took a photo of me, and used it to make money on your Instagram, and then sent settlement letters to people associated with me for using it you'd be asking for a broken nose if I ever laid eyes on you again, legal right or not.

frereubu 8y ago
As far as I'm aware, in the UK, if the photograph was of you specifically - that is, not as part of a crowd - technically the photographer would need you to sign a model release, a legal document saying that you give the photographer the rights to use the image for commercial purposes. The document can stipulate a payment or that you give the rights for free. I can't imagine the situation is very different in other jurisdictions that protect intellectual property - but would be interested to hear from someone know knows more about that, because my knowledge is only based on the first year of a photography degree.
- busterarm 8y ago
  Most venues (and almost certainly all large ones/festivals) have waivers explaining that you're in a space where photography/videography is taking place and that by being present you are essentially signing a release. That would apply to the talent too.
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  I am not a photography lawyer but... a model release would certainly be expected in a situation where a photographer hires a model for a specific shoot whose shots would be used commercially. In situations where the shoot is for a third party (e.g. a clothing company that hires a model and a photographer to create catalogue pictures) the model release might be held by the party. However, if a photographer creates pictures of an artist in a concert-style venue, I imagine the artist (or their management) might expect the Terms and Conditions of the venue to override any arrangement that an 'unauthorised' photographer tried to create.
- frereubu 8y ago
  Should have clarified - this was a direct response to the parent comment, which talked about someone taking his / her picture, not about the linked article.
lunchables 8y ago
>Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. Disclaimer: I am american so this is all based on my (extreme layman) understanding of the law and copyright. The system is pretty simple, if you are in a public place you can be photographed. Just like anyone can look at you, someone can take a photo. Their camera, their knowledge of how to take the photo, their correctly producing the photo and circulating it, via whatever methods they have developed over years of producing content (eg instagram, personal website, art shows, magazines, whatever). Why should you own the rights? You are certainly welcome to take photos of yourself and you of course own all the rights.
- berbec 8y ago
  I have a few photographer friends and this is my understanding of US, at least New York, law as well. It has to do with the dreaded "reasonable expectation of privacy". Walking to the local corner store, you have no sane belief you wouldn't be photographed. The part I think is a little silly is the paparazzi with telephoto lenses shooting into the window of a hotel from a quarter mile away. Technically, it's a public space because the window was open. Doesn't matter it's the 37th floor and the photographer is several blocks away; since anyone looking into the window could see what the photographer took, it's fair game.
  - lunchables 8y ago
    >The part I think is a little silly is the paparazzi with telephoto lenses shooting into the window of a hotel from a quarter mile away. Technically, it's a public space because the window was open. Doesn't matter it's the 37th floor and the photographer is several blocks away; since anyone looking into the window could see what the photographer took, it's fair game. I agree, the whole "if it is visible from a public place it is fair game" thing seems a little crazy. I think the argument is "do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy" and if you are standing in front of a window, would you? I certainly do not assume so, but I also don't live on the 37th floor. But if I can see out a window then someone can see in. I think if I was famous enough to have the paparazzi photographing me I would just get tinted/mirrored/something windows that I could see out but they couldn't see in.
ghaff 8y ago
In the general case—leaving aside concerts and festivals—if I take a photo of you in a public place I can’t sell it for use in advertising or promotion without a model release. However, I own the rights to the photo including selling it and publishing it—and preventing others from using it without permission. That’s in the US. I’m sure there are some differences between countries especially in defining commercial use.
dylan604 8y ago
> Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. I guess that totally depends on the type of shoot. If it's a studio shoot with a paid model signing waivers/releases/etc, then of course the photog owns it. They put in the time/work/money to produce the image. Street photography is definitely where it starts to get fuzzy (to me, not legally). If the person in the image is the entire point of the image, then I definitely feel like the photographer should have a conversation with the individual. Ethically speaking. Especially if it's an image that the photographer could be making money from later. A release form should be made available. If the people are just part of the image giving "life" to the image, then I have no issues. It is pretty annoying at times. I have taken studio portraits of family members, and then gave them digital files to make what ever prints they wanted. These were clean images meaning there was no watermarking or any type. One CVS refused to make prints without a release form. Another place hemmed and hawed about it, but the third place never even thought of asking. I just wanted to do a nice thing, and made it as easy as possible for the family. It never occurred that someone would question it. Lesson learned, I now always provide a signed release granting permission for creating prints.
will4274 8y ago
> Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. I agree, but, I find the band's stance that the subject's permission is sufficient to also be repugnant. Two artists (subject and photographer) are involved in creating the work. Imho, absent an agreement, consent from both parties should be required to redistribute the photograph.
pbalau 8y ago
> Legally speaking, the photographer is completely within his rights. That's not that clearly cut. One needs to fit in one of the following 3 cases if one wants to take "professional" photos at a live show: 1) hired by the performer, thus the copyright belongs to the performer 2) hired by the organizers/venue: copyright goes to the venue/organizer 3) 3rd party and this goes complicated, because based on your contract with the venue/organizer, you might or might not retain the copyright on the pictures. One thing that people on here and even on reddit, seem to not know is that the usual arrangement is for these 3rd parties to get free access to the festival, in exchange of helping with promoting the event/bands. This is why on virtually all live events you are not allowed to show up with a professionally looking video/photo device. In one case, this was explained as "any device with detachable lenses". In order to be admitted with such a device, you need to have an accreditation, witch means you fit in one of the categories above. Which in turn means there is a contract that stipulates what exactly you are allowed to do with the material you are gathering.
em-bee 8y ago
Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. my own photos are published with an explicit license given to the subjects of an image, because i agree. i should be in 100% control of what happens with my likeness. this also applies in the case of tattoos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18769227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18769227 if someone gets a tattoo, they should not be prevented from using pictures of themselves in whatever way they like.

frereubu 8y ago

As far as I'm aware, in the UK, if the photograph was of you specifically - that is, not as part of a crowd - technically the photographer would need you to sign a model release, a legal document saying that you give the photographer the rights to use the image for commercial purposes. The document can stipulate a payment or that you give the rights for free. I can't imagine the situation is very different in other jurisdictions that protect intellectual property - but would be interested to hear from someone know knows more about that, because my knowledge is only based on the first year of a photography degree.

busterarm 8y ago
Most venues (and almost certainly all large ones/festivals) have waivers explaining that you're in a space where photography/videography is taking place and that by being present you are essentially signing a release. That would apply to the talent too.
KineticLensman 8y ago
I am not a photography lawyer but... a model release would certainly be expected in a situation where a photographer hires a model for a specific shoot whose shots would be used commercially. In situations where the shoot is for a third party (e.g. a clothing company that hires a model and a photographer to create catalogue pictures) the model release might be held by the party. However, if a photographer creates pictures of an artist in a concert-style venue, I imagine the artist (or their management) might expect the Terms and Conditions of the venue to override any arrangement that an 'unauthorised' photographer tried to create.
frereubu 8y ago
Should have clarified - this was a direct response to the parent comment, which talked about someone taking his / her picture, not about the linked article.

lunchables 8y ago

>Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. Disclaimer: I am american so this is all based on my (extreme layman) understanding of the law and copyright. The system is pretty simple, if you are in a public place you can be photographed. Just like anyone can look at you, someone can take a photo. Their camera, their knowledge of how to take the photo, their correctly producing the photo and circulating it, via whatever methods they have developed over years of producing content (eg instagram, personal website, art shows, magazines, whatever). Why should you own the rights? You are certainly welcome to take photos of yourself and you of course own all the rights.

berbec 8y ago
I have a few photographer friends and this is my understanding of US, at least New York, law as well. It has to do with the dreaded "reasonable expectation of privacy". Walking to the local corner store, you have no sane belief you wouldn't be photographed. The part I think is a little silly is the paparazzi with telephoto lenses shooting into the window of a hotel from a quarter mile away. Technically, it's a public space because the window was open. Doesn't matter it's the 37th floor and the photographer is several blocks away; since anyone looking into the window could see what the photographer took, it's fair game.
- lunchables 8y ago
  >The part I think is a little silly is the paparazzi with telephoto lenses shooting into the window of a hotel from a quarter mile away. Technically, it's a public space because the window was open. Doesn't matter it's the 37th floor and the photographer is several blocks away; since anyone looking into the window could see what the photographer took, it's fair game. I agree, the whole "if it is visible from a public place it is fair game" thing seems a little crazy. I think the argument is "do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy" and if you are standing in front of a window, would you? I certainly do not assume so, but I also don't live on the 37th floor. But if I can see out a window then someone can see in. I think if I was famous enough to have the paparazzi photographing me I would just get tinted/mirrored/something windows that I could see out but they couldn't see in.

ghaff 8y ago

In the general case—leaving aside concerts and festivals—if I take a photo of you in a public place I can’t sell it for use in advertising or promotion without a model release. However, I own the rights to the photo including selling it and publishing it—and preventing others from using it without permission. That’s in the US. I’m sure there are some differences between countries especially in defining commercial use.

dylan604 8y ago

> Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. I guess that totally depends on the type of shoot. If it's a studio shoot with a paid model signing waivers/releases/etc, then of course the photog owns it. They put in the time/work/money to produce the image. Street photography is definitely where it starts to get fuzzy (to me, not legally). If the person in the image is the entire point of the image, then I definitely feel like the photographer should have a conversation with the individual. Ethically speaking. Especially if it's an image that the photographer could be making money from later. A release form should be made available. If the people are just part of the image giving "life" to the image, then I have no issues. It is pretty annoying at times. I have taken studio portraits of family members, and then gave them digital files to make what ever prints they wanted. These were clean images meaning there was no watermarking or any type. One CVS refused to make prints without a release form. Another place hemmed and hawed about it, but the third place never even thought of asking. I just wanted to do a nice thing, and made it as easy as possible for the family. It never occurred that someone would question it. Lesson learned, I now always provide a signed release granting permission for creating prints.

will4274 8y ago

> Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. I agree, but, I find the band's stance that the subject's permission is sufficient to also be repugnant. Two artists (subject and photographer) are involved in creating the work. Imho, absent an agreement, consent from both parties should be required to redistribute the photograph.

pbalau 8y ago

> Legally speaking, the photographer is completely within his rights. That's not that clearly cut. One needs to fit in one of the following 3 cases if one wants to take "professional" photos at a live show: 1) hired by the performer, thus the copyright belongs to the performer 2) hired by the organizers/venue: copyright goes to the venue/organizer 3) 3rd party and this goes complicated, because based on your contract with the venue/organizer, you might or might not retain the copyright on the pictures. One thing that people on here and even on reddit, seem to not know is that the usual arrangement is for these 3rd parties to get free access to the festival, in exchange of helping with promoting the event/bands. This is why on virtually all live events you are not allowed to show up with a professionally looking video/photo device. In one case, this was explained as "any device with detachable lenses". In order to be admitted with such a device, you need to have an accreditation, witch means you fit in one of the categories above. Which in turn means there is a contract that stipulates what exactly you are allowed to do with the material you are gathering.

em-bee 8y ago

Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant. my own photos are published with an explicit license given to the subjects of an image, because i agree. i should be in 100% control of what happens with my likeness. this also applies in the case of tattoos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18769227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18769227 if someone gets a tattoo, they should not be prevented from using pictures of themselves in whatever way they like.