3 ms·

It's not just profit. Imagine taking a photograph that then gets used to promote a political party that campaigns against your beliefs - you might be happy with

• chewxy 14y ago
  You have a point. But in my worst case scenario (i.e. I take a picture of a starving African child, and a hypothetical neo-nazi racist politician were to use it in saying "this is what god intends for black people"), there would be a moral outrage on my part. However, I wouldn't be outraged at the free (mis)use. Rather, the moral outrage would be at the misrepresentation of the photo. That would fall under the likeness laws I believe. The subject of the photos I believe would probably have cause to sue in that case (of course in the case of the starving African child, it probably will not happen) Perhaps you can think of something worse
• Silhouette 14y ago
  While I think you have a valid point, I think it's also useful to separate copyright (which is fundamentally an economic tool, hence the "limited" duration) from other reasons to restrict copying or redistributing material by law, such as protecting privacy rights, trade secrets, genuine national security concerns, etc. Assuming copyright law is the correct tool to guard against these other things, and against the kind of misrepresentation you're talking about, seems to muddy the waters and thus to dilute reasonable but distinct arguments in favour of either copyright or the other protections.