3 ms·

That is the way the law is currently structured and interpreted (in the U.S.A.), but it doesn't have to be that way. I have long been of the opinion that people

by maaku 15y ago

That is the way the law is currently structured and interpreted (in the U.S.A.), but it doesn't have to be that way. I have long been of the opinion that people should automatically own (representations of) their own expression, even in public. This is the opposite end of the spectrum from the current situation in the U.S., as you describe. Most jurisdictions in Europe are somewhere in-between. That couple should have the right to sue. I understand that under the current framework they do not, but they should.

potatolicious 15y ago
The editorial protections granted to videography and photography come from necessity. If everyone has the right to all recordings of them, even in public, the media would cease to exist overnight, and we'd all be considerably worse off for it. As a contemporary example, take the famous Big Picture blog: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ This is a rich source of powerful images that tell us about the world and the important things that are happening in it. How many of these people do you think have signed model releases? How many of these people do you think could have realistically signed one? Clearly the mother clutching her daughter in the floodwaters of Thailand has a retained lawyer nearby advising of her rights! So what would our media become? Well, even more talking heads than today - since you won't be able to realistically record/broadcast any images of what's actually going on. The only people you can realistically, explicitly get permission from are armchair analysts. We didn't just magically decide "oh yeah, you don't have full rights to your likeness in public" because we hate freedom. This whole issue has been heavily debated (and continues to be). It's foolish to say that we should just toss this whole thing without understanding all the angles. The real issue here is that with the proliferation of recording and broadcast technology, there is now a lot of recording happening in public done by people without training or education in where to draw the line. Not only that, there are of course no professional associations or industry forces keeping people in check and censuring those who behave unethically. In fact, there isn't a code of conduct, written or unwritten, among the mass population about what is and isn't ok to record/broadcast. In other words, we've given everyone the power of reportage, but none of the sensibilities, responsibilities and obligations that have traditionally accompanied it. IMO there really isn't a need for legal reform for this. What we as a society need to do is start setting new expectations for social behavior that account for these new technologies and their pervasiveness.
- maaku 15y ago
  There would have to be fair-use doctrines, just as there is today with copyright. I can imagine, for example, that journalists reporting on natural events be allowed to use photographs depicting that event and its effects (including the people affected by it), as long as those photographs are only used in stories related to that event. To use your Thai flood example, journalists would be allowed to use that picture of the woman and her child without a model release, but only within the context of a story about the floods in Thailand, or maybe next year in a story about the creation of a disaster relief fund for developing countries. But it doesn't become a stock photo, and he can't then turn around and sell that photo to Geico who uses it to sell flood insurance. All I'm advocating is that the default position, after fair-use exemptions, be favoring privacy. I think you are taking a much more naïve view of my position.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    The current rights granted to editorial usage is part of the fair use doctrine of photography. And note that editorial usage does not shield the defendant from real material loss civil suits - it simply shields the use of the imagery by default, and does not excuse the broadcaster/photographer from damages they cause. I simply do not see anything to fix about this. The right to editorial usage is preserved, but if people go around causing material harm, they can, and probably will, get sued. All without getting draconian about anything... > "But it doesn't become a stock photo, and he can't then turn around and sell that photo to Geico who uses it to sell flood insurance." This is already the state of the law. The use rights granted to editorial use are just that - editorial use. In legal precedent this has included not only traditional journalistic sources, but also artistic and benign, non-commercial use. One thing that has been explicitly determined by previous cases is that commercial usage (stock photography included) is not considered fair editorial usage, and you'd better damn well have a model release if you want to use an image in that context. tl;dr: Everything works as you yourself seem to expect. So where exactly is the outrage and call to reform coming from?
    - maaku 15y ago
      No. In the US if you take a picture of me in a public setting, you own that photo and all rights that go with it. Unless you do something so distasteful and unwarranted that I can claim material harm, I have no recourse against what you choose to do with that picture. See, for example, the paparazzi. My expectation is that if someone takes a photo of me, I maintain some level of control over that photo. That is NOT the current situation.
danso 15y ago
This is a ridiculous law. I'm a photographer and this would effectively kill the ability to document things as the are. IIRC, in France, you have to be careful of taking photos of buildings, as their images are copyrighted by the architect. That seems, in one way, more justifiable as it is the work of the architect. But in other ways, less justifiable because a building is a longstanding fixture in the landscape that people have to live with being there. Either way, I think America's law works well enough.
jahmed 15y ago
Sue for what? What damages could they claim?

by maaku 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago

The editorial protections granted to videography and photography come from necessity. If everyone has the right to all recordings of them, even in public, the media would cease to exist overnight, and we'd all be considerably worse off for it. As a contemporary example, take the famous Big Picture blog: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ This is a rich source of powerful images that tell us about the world and the important things that are happening in it. How many of these people do you think have signed model releases? How many of these people do you think could have realistically signed one? Clearly the mother clutching her daughter in the floodwaters of Thailand has a retained lawyer nearby advising of her rights! So what would our media become? Well, even more talking heads than today - since you won't be able to realistically record/broadcast any images of what's actually going on. The only people you can realistically, explicitly get permission from are armchair analysts. We didn't just magically decide "oh yeah, you don't have full rights to your likeness in public" because we hate freedom. This whole issue has been heavily debated (and continues to be). It's foolish to say that we should just toss this whole thing without understanding all the angles. The real issue here is that with the proliferation of recording and broadcast technology, there is now a lot of recording happening in public done by people without training or education in where to draw the line. Not only that, there are of course no professional associations or industry forces keeping people in check and censuring those who behave unethically. In fact, there isn't a code of conduct, written or unwritten, among the mass population about what is and isn't ok to record/broadcast. In other words, we've given everyone the power of reportage, but none of the sensibilities, responsibilities and obligations that have traditionally accompanied it. IMO there really isn't a need for legal reform for this. What we as a society need to do is start setting new expectations for social behavior that account for these new technologies and their pervasiveness.

maaku 15y ago
There would have to be fair-use doctrines, just as there is today with copyright. I can imagine, for example, that journalists reporting on natural events be allowed to use photographs depicting that event and its effects (including the people affected by it), as long as those photographs are only used in stories related to that event. To use your Thai flood example, journalists would be allowed to use that picture of the woman and her child without a model release, but only within the context of a story about the floods in Thailand, or maybe next year in a story about the creation of a disaster relief fund for developing countries. But it doesn't become a stock photo, and he can't then turn around and sell that photo to Geico who uses it to sell flood insurance. All I'm advocating is that the default position, after fair-use exemptions, be favoring privacy. I think you are taking a much more naïve view of my position.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  The current rights granted to editorial usage is part of the fair use doctrine of photography. And note that editorial usage does not shield the defendant from real material loss civil suits - it simply shields the use of the imagery by default, and does not excuse the broadcaster/photographer from damages they cause. I simply do not see anything to fix about this. The right to editorial usage is preserved, but if people go around causing material harm, they can, and probably will, get sued. All without getting draconian about anything... > "But it doesn't become a stock photo, and he can't then turn around and sell that photo to Geico who uses it to sell flood insurance." This is already the state of the law. The use rights granted to editorial use are just that - editorial use. In legal precedent this has included not only traditional journalistic sources, but also artistic and benign, non-commercial use. One thing that has been explicitly determined by previous cases is that commercial usage (stock photography included) is not considered fair editorial usage, and you'd better damn well have a model release if you want to use an image in that context. tl;dr: Everything works as you yourself seem to expect. So where exactly is the outrage and call to reform coming from?
  - maaku 15y ago
    No. In the US if you take a picture of me in a public setting, you own that photo and all rights that go with it. Unless you do something so distasteful and unwarranted that I can claim material harm, I have no recourse against what you choose to do with that picture. See, for example, the paparazzi. My expectation is that if someone takes a photo of me, I maintain some level of control over that photo. That is NOT the current situation.

danso 15y ago

This is a ridiculous law. I'm a photographer and this would effectively kill the ability to document things as the are. IIRC, in France, you have to be careful of taking photos of buildings, as their images are copyrighted by the architect. That seems, in one way, more justifiable as it is the work of the architect. But in other ways, less justifiable because a building is a longstanding fixture in the landscape that people have to live with being there. Either way, I think America's law works well enough.

jahmed 15y ago

Sue for what? What damages could they claim?