3 ms·

>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 ba

>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.

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.