5 ms·

Model sued for posting photo of herself on Instagram

22 points by dynamite-ready 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bagacrap 5y ago
Dua Lipa is a musician.
- dynamite-ready 5y ago
  A model too, apparently. But it's not the most important part of the story, imo.
mmcgaha 5y ago
She needs to say that here makeup or clothing choice is her intellectual property and they now owe her money.
- setum 5y ago
  clever. would makeup or clothing choices count as intellectual property in the court of law? any existing examples?
Scoundreller 5y ago
Any friends here want to take a picture of me so I can post it and you can sue me and we can both get lots of free publicity before dropping the case? The beeb is waiting.
otterley 5y ago
I don't really understand why this is a story, especially one on HN. Photographers own their photos, not their subjects. This is hardly novel.
- verdverm 5y ago
  b/c HN is post peak?
- dynamite-ready 5y ago
  Questions of jurisprudence are occasionally raised on here. The story surprised me, and in this day and age, I suspect there's a problem worth solving in this. If I stood outside you home and took pictures of you every day, should I really profit from that, without you having a say?
  - otterley 5y ago
    This has been the case for as long as photography has existed. It's particularly important for a free press and a functioning democracy to be able to take photos of unwilling subjects such as government officials in public. Besides, it's not like they're breaking into her home to get shots. Everyone has a right to privacy in their home, but not in public spaces. Don't get me wrong; I'm not making excuses for the excesses of paparazzi, but this doesn't appear to be one of those cases -- particularly if the photographer sent a takedown demand and she didn't comply. Finally, jurisprudence isn't at issue here. Maybe you meant legal rights?
    - dynamite-ready 5y ago
      I'm suggesting jurisprudence, because the law surrounding this issue doesn't seem to be in any way intuitive, and it looks like people appear to have quite different ideas about how transgressions of this nature should be addressed. I think I'm using the word correctly. In practice, the law is on the side of the photographer. Perhaps this is not entirely fair, and that argument seems to be a theoretical one.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Should the real estate board be able to take pictures of your house to include as stock photos of the street? Should you not be able to take a picture in public if everyone in the area hasn't signed on? You would never be able to take a picture in a city again unless you zoom in on a leaf. Should all security cameras point at public areas be removed? You are in public. Outside of your home. On the sidewalk. The other question should you be able to profit off of photos of subjects that are not you and didn't have your permission? I would say yes.. as all newspapers, mags and a lot of books would become illegal. Would you be able to revoke your permission later?
soared 5y ago
I think this is fair. Photography is art, musicians are public figures/fixtures. Dia lipa is a business that profits from her image. If someone takes a photo in a public space of that image, it’s the photographers property and not the business’s.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  > If someone takes a photo in a public space of that image, it’s the photographers property and not the business’s. I don't see how that follows.
  - dynamite-ready 5y ago
    OP here. Exactly the same thought. Feels like a legal fallacy. I'd also wonder if legal rights are subject to change, with an understanding of the context a photo was taken in, or the context it's used. Seems somewhat unfair to me.
- otterley 5y ago
  Dua Lipa being a public figure is irrelevant. If you take a photo of me - and I am definitely not a public figure - and I copy or distribute it without your permission, I would be committing a copyright violation.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    That might be the law, but that's irrelevant. The parent asserted that it's fair, not that it's lawful. Check out the is-ought fallacy.
    - otterley 5y ago
      The law is relevant in any conversation about the law.
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        I tried to point out that the parent's statement regarded the fairness of the behaviour, not what the law says about it.
julienfr112 5y ago
Shot by a paparazzi, so she didn't authorize the paparazzi to take a photo, she was not a "modeling" just walking in an airport
tzs 5y ago
> It is seeking $150,000 (£108,000) damages and has asked for a jury trial. ... > Lipa posted the photo to her Instagram account on 7 February 2019, about four days after it was taken. ... > Integral Images had applied to register copyright for the images, and the request was granted on 20 February 2021 - after Lipa's Instagram post - according to records from the US Copyright Office. They might have a hard time proving damages. Normally, a plaintiff would ask for statutory damages, which range from $750-$30000 per work infringed, or up to $150000 for willful infringement. However, statutory damages (and attorney fees) are not available for infringement before registration unless registration occurred within 3 months of the first publication of the work. It sounds like registration was more like a year after first publication, and infringement was a year before registration. If that timeline is correct then to get $150k damages the plaintiff will have to show actual damages in that amount. I'm skeptical that they can do so.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bagacrap 5y ago

Dua Lipa is a musician.

dynamite-ready 5y ago
A model too, apparently. But it's not the most important part of the story, imo.

mmcgaha 5y ago

She needs to say that here makeup or clothing choice is her intellectual property and they now owe her money.

setum 5y ago
clever. would makeup or clothing choices count as intellectual property in the court of law? any existing examples?

Scoundreller 5y ago

Any friends here want to take a picture of me so I can post it and you can sue me and we can both get lots of free publicity before dropping the case? The beeb is waiting.

otterley 5y ago

I don't really understand why this is a story, especially one on HN. Photographers own their photos, not their subjects. This is hardly novel.

verdverm 5y ago
b/c HN is post peak?
dynamite-ready 5y ago
Questions of jurisprudence are occasionally raised on here. The story surprised me, and in this day and age, I suspect there's a problem worth solving in this. If I stood outside you home and took pictures of you every day, should I really profit from that, without you having a say?
- otterley 5y ago
  This has been the case for as long as photography has existed. It's particularly important for a free press and a functioning democracy to be able to take photos of unwilling subjects such as government officials in public. Besides, it's not like they're breaking into her home to get shots. Everyone has a right to privacy in their home, but not in public spaces. Don't get me wrong; I'm not making excuses for the excesses of paparazzi, but this doesn't appear to be one of those cases -- particularly if the photographer sent a takedown demand and she didn't comply. Finally, jurisprudence isn't at issue here. Maybe you meant legal rights?
  - dynamite-ready 5y ago
    I'm suggesting jurisprudence, because the law surrounding this issue doesn't seem to be in any way intuitive, and it looks like people appear to have quite different ideas about how transgressions of this nature should be addressed. I think I'm using the word correctly. In practice, the law is on the side of the photographer. Perhaps this is not entirely fair, and that argument seems to be a theoretical one.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Should the real estate board be able to take pictures of your house to include as stock photos of the street? Should you not be able to take a picture in public if everyone in the area hasn't signed on? You would never be able to take a picture in a city again unless you zoom in on a leaf. Should all security cameras point at public areas be removed? You are in public. Outside of your home. On the sidewalk. The other question should you be able to profit off of photos of subjects that are not you and didn't have your permission? I would say yes.. as all newspapers, mags and a lot of books would become illegal. Would you be able to revoke your permission later?

soared 5y ago

I think this is fair. Photography is art, musicians are public figures/fixtures. Dia lipa is a business that profits from her image. If someone takes a photo in a public space of that image, it’s the photographers property and not the business’s.

rhn_mk1 5y ago
> If someone takes a photo in a public space of that image, it’s the photographers property and not the business’s. I don't see how that follows.
- dynamite-ready 5y ago
  OP here. Exactly the same thought. Feels like a legal fallacy. I'd also wonder if legal rights are subject to change, with an understanding of the context a photo was taken in, or the context it's used. Seems somewhat unfair to me.
otterley 5y ago
Dua Lipa being a public figure is irrelevant. If you take a photo of me - and I am definitely not a public figure - and I copy or distribute it without your permission, I would be committing a copyright violation.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  That might be the law, but that's irrelevant. The parent asserted that it's fair, not that it's lawful. Check out the is-ought fallacy.
  - otterley 5y ago
    The law is relevant in any conversation about the law.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      I tried to point out that the parent's statement regarded the fairness of the behaviour, not what the law says about it.

julienfr112 5y ago

Shot by a paparazzi, so she didn't authorize the paparazzi to take a photo, she was not a "modeling" just walking in an airport

tzs 5y ago

> It is seeking $150,000 (£108,000) damages and has asked for a jury trial. ... > Lipa posted the photo to her Instagram account on 7 February 2019, about four days after it was taken. ... > Integral Images had applied to register copyright for the images, and the request was granted on 20 February 2021 - after Lipa's Instagram post - according to records from the US Copyright Office. They might have a hard time proving damages. Normally, a plaintiff would ask for statutory damages, which range from $750-$30000 per work infringed, or up to $150000 for willful infringement. However, statutory damages (and attorney fees) are not available for infringement before registration unless registration occurred within 3 months of the first publication of the work. It sounds like registration was more like a year after first publication, and infringement was a year before registration. If that timeline is correct then to get $150k damages the plaintiff will have to show actual damages in that amount. I'm skeptical that they can do so.