copyright hypocrisy

[tlitody]

I've often thought about the rights and wrongs of photographing unsuspecting people in the street without asking. Many people are grossly offended if you snap them. Anthropologists have found many tribes throughout the world who think you are stealing their sole if you take their picture. I heard an interesting piece on the radio the other day where photography students were unexpectedly asked by their tutor to strip off completely in a mixed class of men and women, pair up with one of the opposite sex and to photograph each other naked. There was immediate offense taken by most of the students. The exercise was to illustrate how people are offended by others seeing them in a vulnerable state and using that state of vulnerability to profit by snapping them.
Now I think most everyone here would feel the same but at the same time they would defend to the hilt their rights to go out and photograph anyone in public. and then they would defend to the hilt their copyright on the photographs they had taken.
So I copyright my face and declare myself a work of art. It's my personal look with my personally styled hair and handlebar moustache and a tattooed forehead. Just the interesting characterful look that a street photographer might decide to photograph. So who the hell are you to photograph me and claim copyright over my look?
I shall now sit back and listen to the hypocratic bull**** of how your rights trump my personal rights including copyright just because the law says you can photograph in a public place.

 

[Arjay]

Hm - I think you're overestimating your own interestingness. There are about 6 billion other people out there that make good subjects. Why should I be worried about you?

IMO, the topic of this opening post appears to be rather constructed. There are no fixed ethics of photography - everyone has to find what works for himself and what meets his own ethical publishing criteria as long as he is not breaking laws.

 

[tlitody]

Hm - I think you're overestimating your own interestingness. There are about 6 billion other people out there that make good subjects. Why should I be worried about you?

IMO, the topic of this opening post appears to be rather constructed. There are no fixed ethics of photography - everyone has to find what works for himself and what meets his own ethical publishing criteria as long as he is not breaking laws.

I made up the bit about how I look and of course you opted to pick on that and ignore the main point of the post. See what I mean...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Go on, try it. Copyright your face? Could be interesting. Probably quite difficult, too.

What I find worrying is the sheer combativeness and anger of your post, accusing everyone of BS before anyone has made a single reply.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Arjay]

See what I mean...

No.

I too am guilty of having opened one of the last threads about shooting ethics, copyright and personal privacy rights. The thread meandered over eight pages, degenerating into near-religious bickering between 'liberal' Europeans and Americans who insisted on their own rights (ignoring the rights of others), and finally ended up in exile in the off-topic section.

So, forget it. This topic is a waste of time.

 

[Sparrow]

would the answer be; because that's what the law is? and it's that way because that's the only way it will work? well without taking Match of the Day off the telly and having News International bankrupted by litigation ... actually it wouldn't be all bad

PS have you considered a burka?

 

[rxmd]

I shall now sit back and listen to the hypocratic bull**** of how your rights trump my personal rights including copyright just because the law says you can photograph in a public place.

I sense much anger in you, young Skywalker. Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Is there a causative link between anger and poor spelling?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

>I shall now sit back and listen to the hypocratic bull**** of how your rights trump my
>personal rights

Okay, if that is the intent of the thread, it is OFF-TOPIC.

This thread is more venting than it is philosophical.

It is moved off-topic for that reason.

 

[tlitody]

I sense much anger in you, young Skywalker. Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

quote some tinsel town and that will complete the fantasy. Every ten years we have a census in the UK. Turns out that Jedi is the largest alternative to christianity in the country. Should I take that seriously?

 

[Tim Read]

I think the original post is written in a way to challenge a strongly held prevalent view but I don't agree with Roger that it is combative. I can relate to the opinion that just because my face is in a public place, it does not automatically give a photographer the right to photograph it, especially in "stealth" (a word I see used in this context) circumstances. And I have to observe that the some members of the Forum are very firm indeed in their stated belief that if a subject is in public then the photographer has an almost unquestionable right to record it. I think sometimes this can go too far, especially if "stealth" is being used to record people at unsuspecting and vulnerable moments. I would rather ask.

 

[rxmd]

quote some tinsel town and that will complete the fantasy. Every ten years we have a census in the UK. Turns out that Jedi is the largest alternative to christianity in the country. Should I take that seriously?

I doubt it beats Muslim, but that's another question.

In Germany we have a lawsuit currently going on where a photographer sued another because the latter took a picture of a public figure in a certain pose, which the former considered a hallmark of his own portraits of that person.

You can try copyrighting your haircut and suing photographers snapping your face for creating a derivative work, it's been done by street artists with mixed success.

Under German law you automatically have the copyright on any photo you take, no matter what's in the photo. Now if you start spreading the photo around, all sorts of other issues come into play, such as if your picture is an artistic creation of its own or if you are simply reproducing other works, whether there are personality rights of the persons in question involved, whether or not the court considers your work to be a work of art etc. But the copyright, or rather authors' rights in the German understanding, remain with you; you can't even sign them away, because you did take the photo after all. It's all in the usage. Seems saner to me in many ways.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

this is quite a funny idea for a thread. on the ridiculous side. talk about BS.

 

[degruyl]

just because my face is in a public place, it does not automatically give a photographer the right to photograph it, especially in "stealth" (a word I see used in this context) circumstances.

How many times a day are you on camera? Seriously, why is it any different if a person happens to be holding the camera?

 

[rbiemer]

So I copyright my face and declare myself a work of art.

How do you get to copyright some one elses' work? At best your modifications of your parents work is derivative and I'm not sure you can copyright it.
Rob

 

[sjw617]

How many times a day are you on camera? Seriously, why is it any different if a person happens to be holding the camera?

A very large difference. Video cameras do not have things "published" and held up as art. The pictures do not show up on Facebook, Flicker, RFF, other photo sites or Google images. People do not try to sell copies and make a living selling surveillance video. People do not discuss the f stop or bokah of a surveillance video. You are one of thousands on a surveillance video and not picked out as an individual. You are anonymous on a surveillance video but are an identified individual in a photo.
Another tired argument continually trotted out as "proof" it is OK to harass people.

Steve

 

[JoeV]

Surveillance art:
Here, and here.

~Joe

 

[Andy Kibber]

[...]

It's legal but immoral to take pictures of folks in public? Having your picture taken on a public street is the same as having your picture taken when you're naked? You're going to copyright your face?

Take a valium.

 

[bobbyrab]

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?

 

[tlitody]

Cross the Chanel to France. There you have the "rights to your image" written in law.

Nobody can publish a photo of your face without your written permission.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_%C3%A0_l%27image

Now that sounds like a sensible law. Stops all those paparazzi and everyone else. Didn't work for Princess Di though.
I mean you have to have model releases in the US don't you so why not the same for people in the street or do people just think that if they can get away with it they will, which brings us nicely back to the original point.