Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonjayr | Hacker News Reader

The photographer owns the copyright, and would want to be paid to release the rights in a wikipedia-apropriate way.

Most of the amateur celebrity photography on wikipedia are happy to donate their images to the cause.

As much fun as it is to idolize and eleveate celebrities, they are just employees in another business, they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it.

View on HN

You say this as if it would be impossible for a celeb to find a photog that would be willing to release said copyright. Most photogs just want to be paid for their service. They understand what taking a portrait for said purpose of releasing rights to a CC license would mean. If they, for whatever reason, decide no, then the celeb can move to the next photog on the list that is a mile and a half long, and that's just the photogs within a 50 mile radius of wherever they are currently standing

It's a work for hire that creators of all sorts do all the time. Contracts may well be involved but most creators are happy to take the money and mostly release the rights for the work they did in exchange for a paycheck--as are most people on this board.

I took portraits for a cousin's kiddo and gave them the proper files to have prints made. I forget exactly what store they went to have them made (CVS/Walgreens/WallyWorld), but were at first refused prints because they "didn't own the copyright" with they being my cousin. They were told they would need a signed release to make the prints. Of course I had no issue doing this, but it was the first time I had ever heard of some one being refused like that. Now, I just provide said letter with the files.

Historically, at least wedding and portrait photographers--perhaps in particular--made a lot of their money from selling print packages while retaining the rights to the original photographs.

I'm aware of that. I was more surprised the first time it happened to me as a bit of imposter syndrome where someone took my image as professional. I've never claimed to be one. I just play one on TV

> they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it.

That sounds like something a publicist could easily do if it were a priority. Actors and publicists have no trouble managing their IMDB pages and IMDB even charges for the ability to contribute.

Well then why wouldn’t the celebrities just do that?

Pay someone to do a good photo and then pay them to license it with a Creative Commons license for Wikipedia use. Or just pay them to make it public domain.

This is assuming the celebrities care about their Wikipedia pages.

Do you think there's not one single photographer on the continent willing to take a headshot for a one-time payment? Or that no celebrity has even one PR person who can set up a basic shoot?

This is not a real problem in the real world. You can simply pay someone for the license to a photo. You can simply have a photo done in-house so you own the copyright. There are countless alternatives here

Yes, but doesn't that still seem like a no-brainer from a marketing/public relations perspective?

> they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it.

Passport photo studio will do it for $20. Depending on the celeb they might even do it free. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com