Can YOU be sued for posting YOUR image?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 фев 2024
- www.vondranlegal.com - What do you think? Drop your comments below! Make sure to SUBSCRIBE!!
Yes, it is very possible for you to get sued posting an image of you! As incredible as it sounds, a photographer (for example paparazzi) will generally own the legal rights to a PHOTO TAKEN OF YOU, such that, YOU can be sued for posting YOUR IMAGE OF YOU!
Listen in as Attorney Steve®, the Copyright Lawyer, explains this interesting phenomena in copyight law.
Did you know that paparazzi can actually sue you for posting their photos of you? Find out more about the copyright laws surrounding images and what you can do to protect yourself in this video. Don't let your photos come back to haunt you! #paparazzi #copyright #imageprotection
www.vondranlegal.com - What do you think? Drop your comments below! Make sure to SUBSCRIBE!!
Yes, it is very possible for you to get sued posting an image of you! As incredible as it sounds, a photographer (for example paparazzi) will generally own the legal rights to a PHOTO TAKEN OF YOU, such that, YOU can be sued for posting YOUR IMAGE OF YOU!
Listen in as Attorney Steve®, the Copyright Lawyer, explains this interesting phenomenon in copyright law. 
Кино
I don't think there should be any law against photographing anyone while they are in public, or they are on private property and visible from an area accessible to the public without special effort.
Taking a picture of someone walking into their house, so long as the photographer is standing on the street should be legal. However, if you have to clime a tree of fly a drone to get a picture of them in their back yard should not be allowed.
Could a person copy write their own image in order to prevent anyone else from profiting or using their image? In other words, could’ve celebrity preemptively copyright their image?
Thinking the same idea but then the issue of folks in public spaces - no expectation of privacy. However there needs to be protections in place for more rights over our own likeness.
Sounds like there might be a good business to be made helping celebrities to recreate these photos and then flood the Internet with the re-creations thus destroying the value of the paparazzi photo.
As the person in the photo the law should recognize your right to use such photo any way you wish. If someone wants to use a photo of you then they should have to contract with the person that took the photo. They should not be allowed to sue you for using a photo of yourself no matter who took it. Unless there is a contract signed where you have given the rights to said photo to someone else (Be it the photographer or other entity).
I agree, there should be inherent rights to do that. Good call! Steve
Another solution would be for the celebs to employ their own photographer so that any photography they use is their own, and that the paparazzi can’t claim that it’s original, or even that it’s their own work.
I think the reason that probably wouldn't work is that often times the photos are taken of celebs not looking so hot. So, unless celebs decided to poison the well by posting a bunch of embarrassing images of themselves, there'd still be a market.
This is like when you can take pictures of a national park BUT, you can't commercialize it without their permission. If someone used that image in a commercial without consent form both of them...sparks are gonna fly. Just posting a pic for fun or news isn't going to be much of an issue. Follow the money....
I have a picture of Gene Washington (SF 49er Football player) taken in 1973. I've got a basketball and I'm holding it away from Gene and I'm looking at him with a huge grin on my face.
I can't post this picture because the copyright belongs to the SF Chronicle.
I was 3 at the time and I do remember the day the picture was taken as, "The day a bunch of really big guys came to play with me." but I don't remember the context myself. In 1973 I was selected as the March of Dimes poster child for the local area (SF Bay Area)
Several members of the Oakland Raiders and 49ers played a basketball game to rearise money for the charity.
If I wanted to publish the picture I'd have to get permission first.
Heironymous bosch
If you are not protecting your intellectual property by keeping it behind a login/password wall, and instead, leave it exposed to the internet and use no protections to thwart distribution, it is your own fault and the item becomes public domain the moment you do that. The internet is public. That which is public, cannot br private, and that which is private, cannot be public.
The real crime in all of these cases is that the lawyers (on both sides) are the only ones who win these cases because the law is so completely rigged in their (the lawyers) favor.
Why? It’s obvious. Who do we keep electing into office to write all these new laws? Lawyers. The real crime is these lawyers enact thousands of new laws every year and the primary reason for many of them is to make sure that the rats nest is so complicated that no layman could possibly understand how to navigate the legal system all by himself.
The people need to
1 - put a sunset clause on every new law so that it needs to be renewed after 5, 10 or so years. If it’s not renewed it just goes away. A new law expiration date if you will.
2 - for every brand new law they want to create, we should force them to go find an old one they want to eliminate in order to make room.
Only partially true. There is a lot of BS on the HILL, no question, most at the behest of lobbyists that promise to keep the politician in office forever. However, If you have a viable case, the law will work with you, and you can feather your own nest, usually with the help of a great lawyer.
@@attorneysteve It is. It “the HILL”. In CA for example, they pass thousands of new laws every year. You would think by 202x we would pretty much have the basics covered and only need a few new ones. But nope. To make my point, we used to have a part time congress that only met for a few months each year. They changed that in the 80s and stayed in Sacramento year round. When they did that, the number of new laws and regulations skyrocketed from a couple hundred, to thousands and next thing you know, the government had their grubby and greedy fingers in everything from your toothpaste, to how our gasoline is formulated and determining what causes cancer and labeling everything under the sun with proper warnings. Spoiler alert, since they started the cancer thing, every single chemical/substance/item that they studied has been determined to cause cancer. They have a 100% perfect record on that.
We also now have more lawyers in CA and New York than every other country I. The world except for I did which has 1 billion people in it. One would think with all these lawyers ready to protect our rights, we of all people should never have any problems right? But instead, the entire legal community is working together to make sure that the only thing that is protected is their “reputation” and ability to make more money next year on laws and lawsuits that do not fix the underlying causes.
Settling out of court for undisclosed sums and no admissions of wrongdoing without setting precedent and judgements is utterly out of control and we the people are paying through the nose for a system that treats us like doormats.
Look past the darn autocorrections. It isn’t “the HILL” …
So..... This photographer is making money on a photograph he took without her express written permission and is now suing her for not getting HIS permission to use the photo? WTAF.
Is this a California thing?
Because as a photographer myself who left Cali permanently five years ago, I ALWAYS do everything possible to get permission before even taking photos of people in public places; regardless of where I shoot, then I get a MODEL RELEASE signed (aka, written permission) before publishing or distributing said image(s) whenever possible.
However while in a public place and there are people in the background that I have no realistic way of getting their permission, being that they're not the subject of my intended shots and many times I don't even realize that they were captured in the background until I'm in the editing process, I find it to be just good practice, common courtesy, and ethical to simply blur these people's identities out, or remove them altogether.
It's also definitely a CYA against this kind of nonsense in the reverse.....
The list of reasons to avoid California is long. It should be the other way around that YOU have the right to your personal likeness unless you sold/signed it away in some deal.
No, if you are in public, you should be able to photograph whatever your eyes can see. Do you want to sensor vision now?
@@DenverHarris Not saying you can't photograph in public but if someone photographs you in public and you find the photo of yourself you should be able to use it however you wish as its a photo of you.
Photography as a art and profession needs to go away
Nah, love great things, great food, great art, great photography, great legal channels!!! ; )
lol wtf??
Crap and fall back in it much.