copyright hypocrisy

[tlitody]

Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say we pass a law that the gives the OP the power to decide what images cross the line and become invasion of privacy or questionable copyright, and we'll allow this law to be retrospective. So just for the purpose of our hypothetical scenario, he can revisit HCB's body of photos, or nominate any noted photographer you like. What should be deleted?

Its not for me to decide. It's for the subject in the photo. But most of them probably don't know they have been used. A good portion would object if they did or want recompense. Does their not knowing make it all right? Which brings us nicely back to the original point.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Its not for me to decide. It's for the subject in the photo. But most of them probably don't know they have been used.

1. If they don't know, they can't decide.

A good portion would object if they did or want recompense.

2. Isn't that an assumption on your part that is unsubstantiated by any significant evidence?

Does their not knowing make it all right?

3. If they don't object, it's alright.

Which brings us nicely back to the original point.

4. What WAS the original point?

 

[dave lackey]

This is gonna be good.

 

[tlitody]

4. What WAS the original point?

I guess you'll never know.

 

[migtex]

So, are we about to have empty streets (using PS5) photos or blank faces for the future...

If you don't want your picture taken.. stay at home!
Otherwise you fair game to me, oh you can take my picture too. No harm done!

You know, the World does not care about me, neither about you I guess...
Why then so much anger?
Oh I see, because exactly that... oh well... Live and let Live!

 

[Roger Hicks]

You know, the World does not care about me, neither about you I guess...

Exactly. When you're young, you're always worried about other people 'knowing your business'. When you grow up a bit, you realize that they don't really care. As long as you don't frighten the horses, people who don't know you (or don't know you well) tend to ignore you.

Then again, I've never quite understood why people are so concerned about having their photos taken. Once you've discounted the idea of having your soul stolen, what's so terrible? That you might not look your best? Gosh! Wecome to the real world!

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

Exactly. When you're young, you're always worried about other people 'knowing your business'. When you grow up a bit, you realize that they don't really care. As long as you don't frighten the horses, people who don't know you (or don't know you well) tend to ignore you.

Then again, I've never quite understood why people are so concerned about having their photos taken. Once you've discounted the idea of having your soul stolen, what's so terrible? That you might not look your best? Gosh! Wecome to the real world!

Cheers,

R.

you may think thats just an ignorant belief system but for a lot of people its an instinctive response.

 

[Roger Hicks]

you may think thats just an ignorant belief system but for a lot of people its an instinctive response.

But then, I've always had more respect for rational thought than for primitive emotionalism. The former is, after all, why we are no longer hunter-gatherers living in caves. Some belief systems are worth more than others.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rxmd]

4. What WAS the original point?

I guess you'll never know.

Well, as long as you know what the point was...

Anyway, the original point seems to have been a bizarre confusion of copyright vs. personality rights on the one hand, and of your presumed copyright in your look vs. a photographer's copyright to a photo with you in it on the other.

As for the former, it seems rather pointless. If you assume that a person has personality rights attached to their image, it's clearly not just because of the artistic effort they put into their hairdo, and if you don't, the discussion breaks down. So the two are clearly different things, and mixing them up is probably not a good idea.

As for the latter, moving away from your presumed copyright in your face a little bit, let's say I have here a novel. Its author clearly has the copyright in it. Now I take a picture of my table with the book on it. I now have the copyright on the picture with the book somewhere in it. You seem to assert that alone by taking the picture, I'm already infringing on the author's rights to his book. It follows that you mostly can't photograph anything except landscapes, because the picture is likely to have something in it that was created by someone else. Obviously this is not a particularly useful line of inquiry.

 

[DRabbit]

Rxmd... I think you make an excellent point with your book example.

Also, I think that people often want to assert their right to privacy when it comes to having their photo taken (and confuse privacy with copyright or right to compensation). The problem is, that you cannot expect any level of real privacy when you are out in public. If I act like a peeping tom and crawl up to a window in your home and take a photo secretly through that window, I'm definitely doing something wrong (even illegal). However, if you are out on a public street where everyone and anyone can see what you are doing, how is capturing that in a photo an invasion of privacy?

It's even possible a photographer capture you without intent to do so. Ever been to NYC? Lots of tourists taking photos of lots of things. Their target may not be the people, but those people end up in photos, and those photos end up shared all over the internet under the title "my trip to NYC!"

Legally, from how I understand copyright in the U.S., a photographer does not need a model release from you unless they plan to use the image commercially (for marketing/advertising purposes for example). In the fine art category, the photographer does not need a release. For photojournalism they do not need a release.

Is it good practice and polite behavior to get one if you can, to share your business card or to simple ask permission to take the photo? Well that's really up to each photographer.

 

[migtex]

And people get mad because someone may (just may) Take/have/print/publish a photo from them....

really?!!

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/10/surveillance_as.html

 

[antiquark]

I would just get you to sign a model release. Problem solved!