4 ms·

But he can't be taking pictures at a concert of people and bands without their consent and then try selling these pictures to brands for commercial use.

ghaff 8y ago
The crowd doesn’t really matter but I would think the band itself would have publicity rights for any commercial (in the sense of marketing or promotional) use. The photographer could presumably sell copies, publish in magazines, etc. A press pass for a concert could have other restrictions I guess but the whole purpose of a pro photographer taking pictures is to sell them.
ozgurozkan 8y ago
I am wondering why you feel this way. Legally it's wrong. Even under GDPR it's art. Photos taken for art purpose doesn't need any consent which also protects even street photographers.
- detaro 8y ago
  parent explicitly was talking about not-art use: > try selling these pictures to brands for commercial use Also, GDPR does not have an art exception per se, but it allows member states to create them. Legality of street photography is a complex topic and viewed differently in different jurisdictions.
  - ozgurozkan 8y ago
    Taking a photo is a different action. You don't need a consent for it in public. Just taking a photo is the sole art purpose if you the aim is not distributing it. Selling those pictures to brands is a different action. Selling those pictures to the subject itself is different action. Using those pictures as a papparazzi is a different action. All of them is as complex as street photography. Legality of all photography intents viewed differently in different jurisdictions.
ozgurozkan 8y ago
Legally you can take a stranger's photo for yourself and keep it if it's in public. Unless there is a being model case the photo belongs to the photographer. So anyone can take pictures of people and bands in concerts and they do. Thing is how they're using them. If you sell that to a brand there should be a model release. On every other case even for the person itself he or she should pay for the sharing license. Take real models as an example they are being photographed and they are released in stock photo markets the only thing they can do is finding themselves on that marketplace. Later on they share stock photo branded screenshots :). Because they don't pay for the original ones. They need to pay for the photos that includes them as the subject.
_ph_ 8y ago
He most likely does not have the right to sell the pictures without the bands consent - thats why you have to have "model releases". But this doesn't matter, as he didn't try to sell the pictures. The case is based on unlicensed commercial usage of the photographers pictures. If I were to translate "Harry Potter" into a different language, the copyright of the translation would be clearly mine. I would not be allowed to sell it without an agreement with the copyright holder of "Harry Potter", neither would Joanne Rowling be allowed to use my translation without my agreement.
pmlnr 8y ago
He did not try to sell it, that's the whole point. If they use it for commercial purposes, pay someone. He was fine until it was used to advertise outfits.

ghaff 8y ago

The crowd doesn’t really matter but I would think the band itself would have publicity rights for any commercial (in the sense of marketing or promotional) use. The photographer could presumably sell copies, publish in magazines, etc. A press pass for a concert could have other restrictions I guess but the whole purpose of a pro photographer taking pictures is to sell them.

ozgurozkan 8y ago

I am wondering why you feel this way. Legally it's wrong. Even under GDPR it's art. Photos taken for art purpose doesn't need any consent which also protects even street photographers.

detaro 8y ago
parent explicitly was talking about not-art use: > try selling these pictures to brands for commercial use Also, GDPR does not have an art exception per se, but it allows member states to create them. Legality of street photography is a complex topic and viewed differently in different jurisdictions.
- ozgurozkan 8y ago
  Taking a photo is a different action. You don't need a consent for it in public. Just taking a photo is the sole art purpose if you the aim is not distributing it. Selling those pictures to brands is a different action. Selling those pictures to the subject itself is different action. Using those pictures as a papparazzi is a different action. All of them is as complex as street photography. Legality of all photography intents viewed differently in different jurisdictions.

ozgurozkan 8y ago

Legally you can take a stranger's photo for yourself and keep it if it's in public. Unless there is a being model case the photo belongs to the photographer. So anyone can take pictures of people and bands in concerts and they do. Thing is how they're using them. If you sell that to a brand there should be a model release. On every other case even for the person itself he or she should pay for the sharing license. Take real models as an example they are being photographed and they are released in stock photo markets the only thing they can do is finding themselves on that marketplace. Later on they share stock photo branded screenshots :). Because they don't pay for the original ones. They need to pay for the photos that includes them as the subject.

_ph_ 8y ago

He most likely does not have the right to sell the pictures without the bands consent - thats why you have to have "model releases". But this doesn't matter, as he didn't try to sell the pictures. The case is based on unlicensed commercial usage of the photographers pictures. If I were to translate "Harry Potter" into a different language, the copyright of the translation would be clearly mine. I would not be allowed to sell it without an agreement with the copyright holder of "Harry Potter", neither would Joanne Rowling be allowed to use my translation without my agreement.

pmlnr 8y ago

He did not try to sell it, that's the whole point. If they use it for commercial purposes, pay someone. He was fine until it was used to advertise outfits.