4 ms·

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.

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?
- dynamite-ready 5y ago
  Me and my wife went to the Sistine Chapel a few years back. You can't take photos in there, or in many other notable tourist attractions, without purchasing a license. Thinking about this story, does that also make sense? I'd like to think that the model/subject should at least be able to assert their moral rights over the use of their image. Like, threaten to prohibit organisations from publishing images containing their likeness. Wouldn't that be an adequate defence against a tort of this nature?
  - otterley 5y ago
    The Sistine Chapel is not a public place; they have the right to control what people do inside it (subject to the law, of course). Also, moral rights do not include the right of a subject not to be photographed in public. Moral rights (to the extent they exist in Europe; they don't exist in the U.S.) are about rights the author of a work possesses that transcend economic rights, such as attribution and to be free of derogatory treatment.
    - dynamite-ready 5y ago
      In the case of a model/actor, where their image could be suggested to be a form of work, mightn't there be a conflict of interests? That photo would obviously not be as valuable, if the subject was of someone else. As for the Sistine Chapel thing, that does make sense.
  - BrandoElFollito 5y ago
    I have a great photo of me and my friends in a circle taking photos of the ceiling in selfie mode waist level For the fun of course, the quality is poor.
- bb88 5y ago
  > Should you not be able to take a picture in public if everyone in the area hasn't signed on? For news gathering and documentary purposes, yes you can. But if you're a private art photographer, no, you should not. It's the same issue as people walking onto sets of films and then suing because the studio used their likeness without a release. If say, I was in captured accidentally in a promotional video or in a photo in a popular instagram account, I might just sue. Particularly if the instagram account makes $50k/post. If you're making money with my likeness, why shouldn't I get a cut of it?

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?

dynamite-ready 5y ago
Me and my wife went to the Sistine Chapel a few years back. You can't take photos in there, or in many other notable tourist attractions, without purchasing a license. Thinking about this story, does that also make sense? I'd like to think that the model/subject should at least be able to assert their moral rights over the use of their image. Like, threaten to prohibit organisations from publishing images containing their likeness. Wouldn't that be an adequate defence against a tort of this nature?
- otterley 5y ago
  The Sistine Chapel is not a public place; they have the right to control what people do inside it (subject to the law, of course). Also, moral rights do not include the right of a subject not to be photographed in public. Moral rights (to the extent they exist in Europe; they don't exist in the U.S.) are about rights the author of a work possesses that transcend economic rights, such as attribution and to be free of derogatory treatment.
  - dynamite-ready 5y ago
    In the case of a model/actor, where their image could be suggested to be a form of work, mightn't there be a conflict of interests? That photo would obviously not be as valuable, if the subject was of someone else. As for the Sistine Chapel thing, that does make sense.
- BrandoElFollito 5y ago
  I have a great photo of me and my friends in a circle taking photos of the ceiling in selfie mode waist level For the fun of course, the quality is poor.
bb88 5y ago
> Should you not be able to take a picture in public if everyone in the area hasn't signed on? For news gathering and documentary purposes, yes you can. But if you're a private art photographer, no, you should not. It's the same issue as people walking onto sets of films and then suing because the studio used their likeness without a release. If say, I was in captured accidentally in a promotional video or in a photo in a popular instagram account, I might just sue. Particularly if the instagram account makes $50k/post. If you're making money with my likeness, why shouldn't I get a cut of it?