Model sued for posting photo of herself on Instagram
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
As for the Sistine Chapel thing, that does make sense.
For the fun of course, the quality is poor.
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?
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.
would makeup or clothing choices count as intellectual property in the court of law? any existing examples?
...
> 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.
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.
I don't see how that follows.
Seems somewhat unfair to me.
Check out the is-ought fallacy.
The beeb is waiting.