Hacker News Reader

Comment by vacri | Hacker News Reader

The photographer is missing that the difference is that Swift is trying to maintain control of her image. The photographer selling the image is always going to have Swift in it. And if the image is taken in a private venue, then. well, photographers do have to get their subjects' permissions, which is not new. The photographer's work in this case is not purely valuable because of the photographers skill, but also significantly because of its subject matter.

View on HN

Photographers only need to secure permission from subjects if the person is not in, or viewable from, a public place. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy then there's nothing you can do about being photographed.

This is in the US and Australia, at least. There was some irregularity depending on state but AFAIK it's reasonably uniform terriotory now.

Then I wonder why concert venues have press passes, if the photographers are working from a purely public place?

Are concert venues public places?

No, they are not. (Unless the concert venue is on city-owned land such as a public park.)

Grocery stores, shopping malls, and hotel lobbies & conference rooms are not public places either.

The confusion about "public" stems from casual usage vs legal usage.

casual: "I can't be seen in public without my makeup and bra." In this case, "public" just means the opposite of "not at home."

legal: The boat dock is public property but the restaurant at the shore is private property. You can shoot photographs at the dock but if at the restaurant, if management asks you to leave because you're snapping photos, you are required to comply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com