4 ms·

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 publi

by 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
  > If say, I was in captured accidentally in a promotional video or in a photo in a popular instagram account, I might just sue. And I’d respond with a 12(b)(6) motion for summary judgment and dismissal and demand costs. I'd also file a motion for sanctions against your attorney for filing a frivolous lawsuit. In certain states, there are rights to publicity. But these rights limit the use of someone’s name and likeness for commercial or promotional purposes of something other than the subject him/herself. For example, if I took a photo of Dua Lipa and used it to promote my potted meat, she’d have a claim against me. But if I took a photo of her and put it in a newspaper, or put it on Instagram or in my paid magazine with the caption “hey look, it’s Dua Lipa!” — even if it were on the front cover to sell the paper itself — the elements of a rights of publicity claim would not be there; or at the very least, a First Amendment question would arise. The fact that you might make money by selling a newspaper or access to a website that has photos of someone in it isn’t enough. As we say, that’s incidental.

by ipaddr 5y ago

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
> If say, I was in captured accidentally in a promotional video or in a photo in a popular instagram account, I might just sue. And I’d respond with a 12(b)(6) motion for summary judgment and dismissal and demand costs. I'd also file a motion for sanctions against your attorney for filing a frivolous lawsuit. In certain states, there are rights to publicity. But these rights limit the use of someone’s name and likeness for commercial or promotional purposes of something other than the subject him/herself. For example, if I took a photo of Dua Lipa and used it to promote my potted meat, she’d have a claim against me. But if I took a photo of her and put it in a newspaper, or put it on Instagram or in my paid magazine with the caption “hey look, it’s Dua Lipa!” — even if it were on the front cover to sell the paper itself — the elements of a rights of publicity claim would not be there; or at the very least, a First Amendment question would arise. The fact that you might make money by selling a newspaper or access to a website that has photos of someone in it isn’t enough. As we say, that’s incidental.