3 ms·
It seems rather odd that the photographer would expect to be able to benefit from the work of the band, taking photos of their on-stage performance (which is ju
by ajnin 8y ago
It seems rather odd that the photographer would expect to be able to benefit from the work of the band, taking photos of their on-stage performance (which is just as much an act of creation, if not more, as taking a picture), and use the image of that woman freely, including to demand payment of royalties to third-parties, while the subject of the picture should have no say at all in the matter.
The legal aspect is what it is (although it would be interesting to analyze exactly what the creative act of the photographer is here), and the reaction of the band was overly harsh, but the photo wouldn't exist without the band performance, so I feel like there should be some kind of shared right here.
- Traster 8y agoThe photographer didn't expect to benefit from the work of the band. He didn't expect to benefit from his own work of taking the picture, editing it and uploading it. He expected other people not to profit from his work, and when they tried to all he demanded was they donate to charity. At no point did he try and profiteer from this. The fact is that subjects of pictures don't really have the right to refuse to be photographed in public, they only have the right to prevent their image to be used commercially- which is categorically no what this guy was doing.