Celebrities Sued for Posting Photos of Themselves
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Do you own a picture of yourself? It depends, but probably not.
Use code LEGALEAGLE16 for up to 16 FREE MEALS + 3 Surprise Gifts across 6 HelloFresh boxes plus free shipping at legaleagle.link/hellofresh
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
⚖ What should I cover next?
🍋 Get 16 free meals with Hello Fresh using code LEGALEAGLE16 legaleagle.link/hellofresh
I'd love to hear your legal opinion on the ending speech from the 2006 movie Accepted and if it'd hold up
@@marcuskramer8008 yeah. That would be pretty good. The whole legal take on the movie would be great.
Have you ever looked at "Law in Spaaaaaaaaace"? It would interesting how unprepared we will be as Russia blows up satellites, satellites crowding near space, moon mining, trade routes, .... Not sure there is much to cover yet, but curious if you ever talked about it.
Would you please follow up explaining why copyright law considers pressing a shutter button on a camera to be "creating an image" more than actually being the body without whose detailed shapes, hues, contours, and patterns of photon reflectivity, the image could not exist? Which court case established that merely recording a perspective with a cheap camera is "creating an image" while actually causing the essential elements of the image to be present in that perspective is not? Can you not see the monumental betrayal of natural justice at play here? How might we establish a precedent to assign the rights in a photograph to the subjects of it instead of the incidental button-pushers?
Tiktok lawsuit? Fact or cap IDK.
Now I understand why artists punch the paparazzi and break their cameras
I mean, that's one reason. Another being invasion of privacy, property, and safety.
Normalise punching *azis and *azzis
@@_comment god you're the epitome of a redditor, arnt you
😂 😂 😂
The funny thing is, Quentin Tarantino once slapped the camera for filming him without permission. He's acting like he's the character of his own film.
I understand that with current copyright law, the paparazzi has the right to sue celebrities for posting those photos, but I feel like you shouldn't be able to copyright a photo of a person taken without their consent.
I'd say using a photo taken against someone's consent for commercial purposes should be a felony by default.
copyright law is a blight and copyright lawyers are parasites
agree
Consent laws do not apply in public spaces, in terms of being in a photo. Otherwise, anyone who happened to be in the background of ANY photo, personal or professional, could sue to force the photographer or poster to remove the photo. A more skewed reading of the same could force businesses to delete security footage that included you in it, regardless of whether it involved the destruction of criminal evidence. Or, the most likely reading, journalists could be penalized for taking photographs of police officers committing heinous acts of violence.
If you are in public, and/or able to be seen fully in public, it is assumed by law that if eyes can see you, a camera can record you, and the person taking the photo owns that recording or image. And any time someone goes on about "There oughtta be a law" or a change, almost universally, they haven't thought it through.
" I feel like you shouldn't be able to copyright a photo of a person taken without their consent."
That would destroy the entire news industry.
It's pretty fun when a group know for harassing and stalking people to take pictures without consent is trying to sue someone for using a picture they took while most likely harassing stalking said person.
While perhaps not illegal, it's disgusting behavior at the very least. Perhaps we need some updated laws regarding the usage of your own image (and biometrics).
The consent thing is the most insane part. If celebs need to pay to post pictures of themselves, the paparazzi sure as shit should be paying to print images of them too
I get you should be allowed to take photos in a public place, can't stop that really.
However they should be for private use, once you upload them online or try to profit from them then I think you need permsion.
Can you imagine if every private citizen had a squad on paparazzi on their tails, this wouldn't stand for a second. Why is it ok to have double standards against celebs.
Reminds me of the famous urban legend where the thief is injured while robbing a place, and sued the owner for damages.
@@dracoargentum9783 its not an urban legend; it really happened. Theres a video about it on this very channel
@@freakymoejoe2 I know, but 90% of the people know it by an urban legend, so that's what I referenced.
Regardless of what the law says.
It's pretty damn scummy to sue someone for using a picture of THEMSELVES.
Not really
What would be the point of hiring a model if they could just repost the pictures you took that you paid them for on their Instagram
Sorry bud, it's the law. It may be scummy, but it's there.
Can't do shit about it.
@whade62000 There is a big difference between being hired as a model (where a contract is involved), and having the paparazzi photo in question taken without your permission.
My takeaway from this is that all celebrities should post their paparazzi photos with critiques to the photographer's technique and composition so they fall under fair use. Would lead to some hilarious court filings with the same - "hey, what I'm doing is technically legal!" arguments.
"This picture would have been better during the day, or with better lighting, this evening picture of me sneaking a blunt in my backyard just isn't bright enough"
I would LOVE that.
That would be amazing, lol
We should all keep this in mind if we ever become famous enough to interest paparazzis. 😂
Or a politician explaining to court why they were caught with underage prostitute or taking bribes from a sheikh.
I like the way you think 😆
If you're going to be in a place with lots of paparazzi, take a photo of your face and put it on your face. They can't take a photo without illegally pirating your copywritten photo. Then you can sue them
I like the way you think.
Not always, there are journalistic exemptions.
big brain time
Wear a Disney licensed t-shirt and watch the lawyers bicker with each other
@LegalEagle Would their plan work?
So here's the thing. If I pay a photographer to take portraits of me and give me prints, then the contract should just spell out whatever rights I have, if any. That seems fine. But if a photographer takes a candid photo of me _without my permission,_ I do think the law should work differently. It's not like I have agreed to have my likeness published, and while I can't necessarily stop it from happening if I'm in a public place, I should still have the same rights to that candid as anyone else. It is in a very real sense _not_ an artistic work, just a document of ME. If the argument for why these photos are legal is really just "well, you were in a public place, so you should assume people can see you," it seems like I could equally well argue "an image of my presence in a public place therefore cannot be owned by anyone, since anybody could see, so there is no copyright to be had."
@@Raven1024 tell me your a paparazzi person without telling me your a paparazzi person
How would you like it if someone with a long zoom lens took pictures of you and sold it on the internet
@@SilverRose45 Not paparazzi, so... Have fun lying to yourself.
And I literally would not care as long as it was while I was out in public. Because it literally doesn't matter.
Actually if they're using a zoom lens, so much the better. I don't even have to see them or interact.
Some European countries already have that in place or something very similar to your thoughts. I do wonder how the Copyright Act, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court's understanding of privacy via the Constitution work together in all this.
I think the supreme court and others just don't want to change it and continue to let paparazzi exploit celebrities and even anyone to death.
So complaining and arguing is useless, the only solution is enough force.
@@TheAlienPoison Or just realizing that it doesn't matter if a picture of you in public exists...because you didn't lose anything.
Honestly, I think that the subject of photographs should always have a partial ownership of the copyright. It seems unfair that people can own photos of you without your consent but you can’t do anything about it.
Half the time the subject did nothing but exist. Photographers need ownership of their work from their profession. They have training, and thousands of dollars invested in gear and software and hours and hours of practice. Not to mention everything that happens in post to clean it up.
@@Raven1024 without their existence the photo wouldn't exist either Aka the collaboration argument.
@@planetruths1373 It's not a collaboration though. The person being photographed 9 times out of 10 did nothing, and wasn't ever going to do anything with that moment. Collaboration has to be deliberate, it requires some effort.
No one is being damaged by the photo existing, and especially not monetarily where they would be entitled to compensation.
Again you have access to yourself to take your own pictures for personal gain and publicity use. You have not been damaged by someone else taking a picture for media use.
@@Raven1024 them existing is part of their collaboration because without them existing the person wouldn't have a subject. It's not a direct collaboration but without the person existing the picture wouldn't be worth any value or else the photographer should or would have picked a different subject.
And you sat Noone is being damaged, is that the only stipulation for being compensated? That the work needs to damage?
@@planetruths1373 Yes. If it isn't damaging then in some way, then it doesn't matter.
Also no. Your mental gymnastics that lead to "Walking into the mall counts as collaboration because I existed" does not actually make it collaboration and does not entitle anyone to a share of the profits or ownership.
What pisses me off is that there is no contract between the parties. If a contract is silent, sure, the photographer owns the copyright. No contract, no copyright. People already have no right to get someone to delete a photo taken of themselves. Now they can't even post that photo taken without their permission
exactly! i understand photographers owning the copyright of photos theyve taken of buildings, animals, scenery, etc. But when the subject is a person, then the person should also have a right to those photos. its the stupidest thing ever
Since there isn't a law to protect celebrities from paparazzi, perhaps the only thing they can do to take away the power paparazzi have is to snap their own near identical photo and share it first. Then the paparazzi photo isn't unique or terribly valuable and there isn't a copyright issue.
Daniel Radcliffe once made sure to change into the same set of clothes after consecutive days of rehearsing, because there was no market for more photos after the first night, since the photos all subsequently looked like they could have been from the same night.
Some celebrities are doing this already. I just saw something on TMZ where Drake had his own cameraman following him while on vacation. The funny thing is TMZ was making fun of him for doing it, while making no mention of their slimey practice of suing celebrities for using photos taken of them.
Or just hire a photographer?? That would be cheaper than fighting any copyright litigation.
Sure, they can hire a photographer, but I probably wouldn't hire someone to photograph me at the grocery store 😆
If you mean just license said photos, then yes. That is the cheaper alternative.
That’s how Taylor Swift is beating her old record label. They won’t sell her her masters and they are re-releasing her old songs. She didn’t like that they were profiting off her without her approval so she re-recorded her old songs with a few minor changes and is releasing the “new” versions, which are blowing the re-release by her old label out of the water as far as sales. They can’t go after her for copyright infringement or contract violations or anything because she wrote the songs and it’s not exactly the same song. Genius!!
I've never understood how paparazzi taking pictures without the celebrity's consent was legal in the first place, let alone copyrighting those images and profiting off of them without the celebrity's consent or even awareness.
It is a long established legal principle that one can freely view or record photons in a public place or for that matter in any space where they have been granted permission by the landowner or their agents. That you choose to position yourself in a position where those photons can reflect off you prior to them being viewed or recorded does not change this fact. Prohibiting this would also effectively prohibit one from ever taking a photograph of anything without having complete exclusive access to any space within line of sight since some of those photons could have reflected off some third party prior to them being viewed or recorded. Hell even having your eyes open would technically be a problem since your brain is also making tangible records of said photons in the form of neural connections.
It’s extremely unfair that they don’t need consent to own photos of you, but you need consent to post them.
Copyright laws and paparazzi are in need of new regulations.
WHY???
@@KrustyKlown did you not watch the video?
@@KrustyKlown wtf do you mean why?
@@Grinnar Yes, I see people who profit from their copyrighted content, music, etc... who are STEALING other people's copyrighted photos for their own profitable use. Yet, you people think something is wrong with holding people accountable for stealing copyrighted material. So, WHY?? WTF problem is fixed by changing copyright laws that work perfectly well now.
@@KrustyKlown the idea that you can "steal" an image or other piece of content is ridiculous on its face. Copyright is a joke.
It feels wrong to not have any control over an easily identifiable picture of myself taken without my consent. I wouldn't even want total control really but not being able to use my own image doesn't seem reasonable at all.
This is fairly routine, though - go to most amusement parks and they will have at least some rides on which your image will be taken, and copies of the image made available for you to purchase. You have no right to request a copy of the image for free.
@@James-rq9qb But they shouldn't have the right to sell a photo of YOU without your consent.
@@minutemansam1214 That depends. If someone are taking a picture of a street and you just happens to be part of the background then it should be ok. However if this is misused and plenty of such pictures starts to appear then it is a problem. This is a comment about my opinion, not about the law since I am not qualified to say anything about that.
You don't have an expectation of privacy in public, on public street, in parks, etc.
@@James-rq9qb the difference there is when you go to an amusement park, you enter an agreement that they can use your image for commercial purposes, and you are in private property and not public. However yeah, copyright law cares not for the subject of the work, but rather the owner of the work, which is why most people feel violated but have no recourse currently.
So basically, there needs to be a law that says pictures taken of a person that are published may be used by the subject in the photograph for his or her own purposes. You should own your likeness. If I take a picture of someone with the intent to just sell it to a publication... why should I be compensated if the subject of that photo uses it for their personal gain. without them I wouldn't have gotten a check at all. I understand the law, just don't think this fair.
Exactly!
The person in the photo participated in its creation and should have joint copyright as a collaborator in the effort.
So what about a class photo? In that case why would a photographer agree to take the photo when no one would buy it?
@@Just_A_Dude There's issues there. If I take a picture of Earth, is everyone on that side of the planet an equal owner of that picture since they are there in that picture. Or if I go and take a picture of a busy city from high up in a building within that city, do I have to go and find every person in that picture since they are all joint owners of it? That just doesn't make sense, and isn't feasible.
@@LabGecko In those cases, you would just have the photographer set up a work-for-hire arrangement where the school pays a fixed fee to come out and take the photograph, plus charging people for the production of _physical_ photographs.
@@musicenjoyer8605 If you can take a photograph of the Earth where everyone is visible and identifiable then, buddy, you know something the rest of us don't.
Same for cityscapes; a person being in frame isn't the same as them being the subject of the shot.
Not being a copyright lawyer it boggles one’s mind that a photo can be taken of a person without their consent and then be sued if you share that image. As of course opposed to a wedding photographer who has been hired and entered into a contractual agreement over ownership.
Alternative is you being sued for posting a picture of some kids playing at the park.
@@jpslobster7599 that’s really a false alternative. You could go that route but even then a limitation that required monetization would block that problem. More importantly a bar to suing the subject of a photo unless they have specifically waived their rights would infringe on no one at all.
The audacity to sue someone you took a picture of is just beyond despicable. I'd rather have my own respect and dignity intact.
But I guess I don't speak for these money-hungry paparazzis.
As opposed to the money-hungry celebrities using someone else's work and effort, free of charge, to fill their own pockets. Nice.
@@YourFavouriteDraugr the effort to *checks notes* follow you on your off time & take pictures without your consent & make money from a third party off said images of you without the subject of the pictures (you) being properly compensated. Got it.
@@briankaslewicz6130 Yeah, that's more effort that's gone into it from the person taking the photo than the "subject" of the photo. And, there is nothing to compensate the "subject" of the photo for. They were just there.
All the cases even just from this video were of photos taken in public spaces, or in places directly visible from public spaces, where there are no privacy rights - for everyone, equally.
Just because you're annoyed that such effort is profitable is entirely meaningless and speaks more about you than it does of the paprazzis, who are supposed to be the "bad guys".
@@YourFavouriteDraugr It’s stalking and harassment, and they profit off it. Stop defending these pieces of shit.
They should just ask if they have permission to take a photo. Like normal people.
Imagine if it was the other way around and celebs and politicians would be able to sue paparazzi for their pictures with Epstein... please keep laws protecting journalists from power-mad celebrities and political scumbags working!
This is a true BRUH moment of our society…
True bruh moment
Bruh
How so?
BRAH
bruh
In California it's illegal to take someone's picture without their consent. I'm confused about how they can sue you for something that they attained illegally. 🤔
As an occasional California street photographer I'm almost certain this is not correct. If the subject is in a public setting then they have elected to place themselves in a public location and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This doesn't include children or if the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I.e. their home.
So selling a picture that is printed on paper without the subject’s permission is legal but selling a picture that is printed on a cotton shirt or a ceramic mug without the subject’s permission is not.
which is...basically same thing but more sweaters and less papers...
I'm already familiar with copyright law in this case, but it's so utterly ridiculous. It really highlights how stupid our current copyright system is, AND how American laws in particular consistently value property rights over any other rights, even ones you'd think would be sacred.
Unless you're traveling with cash. Then even your property rights are forfeit.
What other sacred rights are you referring to? If you are in public, someone can take a photo/video of you. It's literally that simple.
It's simply profits before people, otherwise known as Capitalism, real ugly stuff.
She used a photo she did not take as a form of self promotion on her social media account. In doing so she reduced the exclusivity of the photo and decreased it's value for the photographer. Seems fair to be sued over that to me.
@@jackforbes1082 Why should a photographer be able to use me as the subject of their art and make money off my image, without my permission or compensation?
So photographers can take photos of a celebrity without their permission and can profit off of them, but the celebrity can't profit off of the photo without the photographer's permission?
You got it! Gotta love copyright nonsense
Yes, because photographers own their content. It's shocking, an artist owns their own content. There is something to be said for the paparazzi being gross in how they get this content much of the time. But a lot of the time it's in a public place where you have no expectation of privacy anyway, and not all of them are bad about it.
But photographers absolutely should be able to own their photos. There is art to it, and effort, and thousands of dollars of investment into gear and training. If you make a contract with them to actually collaborate and have partial ownership of the photo(s) then so be it. Otherwise, it's their art, you're just the subject.
@@Raven1024 We are not talking about artistic photography here, these people hold a shutter button for 20sec hoping for a good photo while hiding behind tree. I know very well how expensive camera equipment is, but I always make sure to ask people that are in my photos for permission first and don't sell them to the highest bidding corporation.
@@Raven1024 But what if the subject is more important than the art? That is what paparrazi do. They do not take photos of life for artistic expression, they intentionally take photos of subjects whose personal fame outweighs any artistic expression the artist could gain from the photo. If viewed in that lens, they are not creating art, rather piggybacking off of someone's already created fortune, and should have to pay for that piggybacking.
@@mobius1082 That's not for you or me to decide. The world seems to think it is important. Look at the money customers pour into the companies producing this documentation of Hollywood.
That alone shows that it has value to the world whether or not you or I would review it as such.
I'm not going to support a law that would vastly negatively affect an entire profession just to stop a particular sect of bad apples.
Also like it or not. Every celeb article about someone does make them more and more celebrity. If the tabloids stop writing about a celeb they lose fame. Quite rapidly too.
Also like it or not there is skill and intuition and artistic talent involved in knowing where to be, when, at what angle, with what lens, and what settings. Even if you think they're just "holding down a button for 20 seconds and hoping"
My biggest question with regards to this is whether celebrity engagement in the photo is intentional or incidental, wouldn't their celebrity status (the thing that gives the photo value) automatically make them a contributor to the work and therefore immediately a co owner of the copyright and able to use it as they saw fit?
What I’ve always been confused about is that couldn’t celebrities sue paparazzi for taking pictures of them without consent? I honestly thought it was illegal to do so. Do they not have the same protections as a regular citizen?
Privacy rights varies between countries : what's allowed in the US can be forbidden in the UK.
It depends. A lot of paparazzi photograph celebrities in places with no real expectation of privacy, such as in restaurants or outside. If some photographers were trying to get photos of a celebrity inside their bedroom, there could be a case for that. For child celebrities, some states have more laws against the photography of minors.
It's amazing to me that a company can have a copyright over someone's image but the person itself does not have any ownership over her image
Because it's not her image, that's why. Just because you're in it doesn't make it yours..
Im a photographer since 1994. Copyright laws should be changed to exclude Paparazzi as well as magazines who bought the image. They should have no right to exploit celebrities and sue the celebrity for posting it. It is unethical and lawyers defending Paparazzi should be ashamed regardless of what the law says.
Being a Constitutional issue, good luck getting Congress to do anything about it. I'm sure they feel they have better things to do. Whether they do or not... (Shrug)
@@ElectroDFW Changing copyright law does not require constitutional amendments. Forbidding paparazzi from making and publishing their work is very different from denying them copyright protections.
@@verybigbrain1 They probably mean freedom of the press would be the issue, not copyright
I wonder if there is a limit where you can get a restraining order for specific photographers or agencies. I don't think anyone can say they aren't harassing people or even stalking. Both are potentially legal issues
I second that.
We should put forth a bill where any photo taken OF THEM, should automatically be theirs, unless there's a contract between the subject and photographer. This kind of stuff is just greedy people using the law to screw over others and make money.
Gigi Hadid's joint author argument absolutely stunned me.
I know you dismmised it with the unplanned paradox but I genuinely think she/her team is on to something potentially devastating for Paparazzi.
With a bit of creative arguing and the right case this could blow the whole thing wide open.
Also since the Paparazzi was waiting outside her apartment could this be used against the unplanned side of the argument?
I am curious where you can draw the line these days between “public figures” and private citizens since online communities have created so many micro celebrities. It seems reasonable that taking pictures of the Kardashians could be protected, newsworthy speech, but if photographers started following around a certain bird-themed CZcams law commentator, would we feel differently about it?
Hmm, my mind just went to someone testing this out by taking paparazzi pictures of Legal Eagle and seeing if his tune changes.
That'd be mean in real life, but the thought kind of made me giggle.
It already happened with TotalBiscuit and the photo that was the original version of the lul emote. The copyright lawsuit is the reason it's a picture rather than a photo.
>It seems reasonable that taking pictures of the Kardashians could be protected, newsworthy speech
No it doesn't! Only in some autocratic country where they are monarchs it would work, in normal word they have exact same rights as normal people. The idea that some families have special treatment goes against almost every single constitution and that's what politicians would LOVE cause THEIR pictures with Epstein would be forbidden to share.
Public Figure means a notable person of interest within the community that the information is primarily marketed towards.
So, say you are a scientist publishing a garbage paper and someone within that field does a deep dive into your public associations, and publishes it on reddit for roasting shitty science - That person is a public figure within that community.
This is also why you DON'T SEE paparazzi invading the life of normal people dating celebrities. Not only is it probably a waste of time (not that profitable), but normal people not in the entertainment community can't be public figures within the entertainment community.
Not to mention the fact that the paparazzi are contributing to the establishment and perpetuation of the subject's celebrity. So if they wanted they could force someone to become a "Public Figure", legally speaking.
I think any picture of a celeb where the author had no explicit permission has to be released for use by the subject of the picture. Even if it's just as a form of compensation for the constant intrusion into their lives. Make them reference the copyright owner but we should at least have the decency to protect them from this kind of BS after they've got basically no leverage when it comes to pictures taken without their permission.
basically agree and paparazzi are not good but this level of A list celebrity relies on the media and by extension the paparazzi
"I think any picture of a celeb where the author had no explicit permission has to be released for use by the subject of the picture"
Apparently, you didn't understand anything the lawyer was trying to explain.
"Even if it's just as a form of compensation for the constant intrusion into their lives. "
Then what about the random person that walks by and captures an image, not even knowing the person in the image? Do you think anyone in a photo now has the right to go into your camera do delete that image if they want? Is that
your thought process?
This is a politician's dream! They'd sue journalists for any compromising picture of them. We'd have NO journalism, at all. What you suggest will make sure people in power will get away with literally everything, forever. Bill Cosby, R. Kelly and Weinstein would be sending investigators and YOU to jail.
No.
When you're in public, you have no right to privacy. That's what "in public" means.
@@KasumiRINA Politician =/= celebrity and I didn't say shit about sueing... I strictly mean "use the picture free of charge but name the copyright holder".
I'd say, unless you have a contractual relationship (i.e. with a photographer) copyright sure applies. But why should an image of yourself be the property of someone else, without ever having established a contract? A paparazzi made image should be either under shared copyright (paparazzi and subjects, because they are indeed "co-authors") or under sole copyright of the subjects (having the the exclusive rights to your own image, unless a contract states otherwise) or public domain.
*Interesting law analysis, LegalEagle!*
It's grotesque that someone's fame dismisses their right to privacy.
I don't like the practice either, but to be fair it isn't the fame that dismisses the right to privacy, it's just that going out in public is considered consenting to being seen and by extension having your photo taken and it's considered the same consent for everybody, so there's no 'violation of privacy'. It's just that the fame incentivizes the paparazzi to exploit that the celebrity can't reasonably expect the privacy in a public space.
There exists no privacy in public spaces for everyone, equally. And unless you're about to start arguing that celebrities should be allowed to void that equality, A) good luck argumenting for it, and B) good luck regulating that.
@@YourFavouriteDraugr the term there is "public spaces", they have to be on public property. Some of these images were actually taken on private property, a good example is those taken at airports, they are private property. While you may not have an expectation of privacy there, the airport is the final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed there.
@@cgi2002 Believe it includes 'Outdoors". As the great outdoors is public...?
@@b.w.9244 basically you need to be on public property when the photo is taken to avoid those issues.
That includes the great outdoors unless its private property still. So for example if I owned 1000 hectares of woodland, you could take photos from the road adjacent to it, but the moment you step into my woodland your not in a public place even though it can be seen from a public place, which means I now get a say in your ability to film/photograph on said land, however if the woodland was national park, its deemed public so your free. It's a right mess, as there have been instances of paparazzi using telephoto lenses to take snaps of people miles away through windows into private residences. Because it can be seen from the "outside" from a public place, it's somewhat fair game dispite how wrong it is. Individual judges tend to pick and mix if that violates rights.
This doesn't cover places which are public property but private for other reasons were photography is banned. Secure military bases, prisons, etc all fall under this.
Then there are buildings that photographing can get you in trouble for even if your in a public place when you do it. Federal reserve buildings or banks for example, as you can be deemed to be "planning" an illegal activity (which in itself is a crime).
"I think this image is great, well centered and I like the colors" is the new "No copyright infringement intended"
Someone has uploaded the entire Holy Grail movie to youtube with the line "I do not own the rights to this video. It is for viewing purposes only", and I think it's perfection.
@@yurisei6732 That's still entirely illegal. The person that uploaded that is an idiot.
Also, who gets to determine when someone has douse something worth being famous for? There are plenty of actors and actresses out there but only a handful get the kind of attention the celebrities in these cases get. Who determines at what point do you become a celebrity? Because someone who is famous in my mind may be someone you've never heard of.
As a person perusing the legal fraternity your videos keep me happy. ❤ Thanks.
This is one of those moments when we have to remember that this is a channel purely about the law. That way we don’t discuss how this is an indictment of a systemic dysfunction in our society.
Well said!
But law in itself is an attempt to realize justice. The written word may be cut and dry, but the purpose and social impact of law is worth discussing.
@@patrickmcgever2736 well, nominally. Let's not kid ourselves, it's about interests, but this i why I'm just gonna ditto what Andrew said
Legal Eagle is a lawyer and his channel is about telling the audience what the law is, not necessarily what it should be. Perhaps he or someone else could start a channel called Political Umbilical to help people connect to the mother theories and principles that sustain and nourish better human behavior.
Andrew Johnson, your first sentence offers a good observation. Your second doesn't logically follow. The video and its title encourage us to "discuss how this is an indictment of a systemic dysfunction in our society" by presenting a normatively absurd but perfectly legal phenomenon. The contrast draws our eyes and inspires comments.
Other commenters point out ways the laws should change to align our laws with our norms. A few point to laws in European nations that protect a person's right to withhold consent and prevent profit from publishing their likeness.
It looks like US law heavily favors even the worst kinds of photographers. Others favor privacy. It looks fine to debate a better balance here. Laws should reflect our interests and our norms. So "systemic dysfunction" is fair game here.
Could a celebrity make a unique piece of clothing, call it art, get it copyrighted, and then sue (successfully) paparazzi for taking pictures of them while wearing that art?
I just asked this same question! :) let me know if anyone gets back to you.
Not in a public space, no. If someone from the Louvre decided to move the Mona Lisa from one building to another, anyone seeing it outside could take a photo of it.
Clothing designs can't be copyrighted.
No. Otherwise fashion designers would copyright their clothes and stop companies like H&M from copying their designs for cheaper. Clothing cannot be copyrighted. But even if you're talking about a piece of art like a portrait, taking a photo is exactly that. Taking a photo. You're not copying the art. If you were doing that, you'd have to be using the same medium - i.e. make a painting of the original painting, which is forgery.
@@Bad_Wolf_Media Even with the long copyright terms in place (70 years after death!) I don't think Michelangelo still has a copyright on the Mona Lisa :P
As a photographer I really hate when photographers do this - it’s highly exploitative and they are using the images commercially mostly without any form of consent form - it’s worth noting that sometimes there are exceptions to who owns the copyright - here in Australia work done for government generally sees copyright land with the govt. and there are also limitations on photos taken of govt buildings for commercial purposes - personally I feel like if there is no payment to the model / celebrity, and no model release or consent form… then that celebrity should have every right to use / repost that image, either with or without credit - the agency should then be able to share that post, sharing that they are behind the image - there can be a win win, and in some cases maybe could lead to a more beneficial relationship -
Love the vids, really enjoyed the bit about personality rights/right of publicity since that's where I was getting hung up at the beginning of the video.
Something a famous person needs to try; Throw some googley eyes on the picture, call it a parody and see if you've got a case for fair use
This is a good one 😂
Another approach may be to put commentary with the photo, like a critique (which is also covered by fair use).
"Well, as you see here, the lighting is not up to quality. A true professional would have done a much better job. If there going to take photos of me, they could at least try to do even a half-assed job correctly" - or something to that effect.
@@Charlesscul yeah, that a good one as well! Write a short form essay on the picture!
I would be extremely interested in a deeper dive into Getty Images and their lawsuit against Carol Highsmith. I think it brings a much more interesting view of copyright law and public domain law. Especially the idea that you can slap a watermark on a public domain image and claim you own it.
Nowadays, the lion’s share of Getty’s databank is from Facebook, Instagram and the like
@@dac554 that's because FB and others sell them the images.
Carefully read the terms for uploading an image to those site, it states that you are basically surrendering any rights to it to them to use however they wish, including selling said images.
@@cgi2002 You are not surrendering your rights. You still own the copyright.. Instead you are giving Facebook a “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license” and if Getty Images turns around and sues you over the posting of your own photo, they will lose.
The lawsuit was by Carol Highsmith against Getty Images, not the other way around. She claimed that Getty was asserting that they owned the copyrights and thus tried to extort money from Highsmith who had used the images on her own website. Most of her case was dismissed because Getty’s response was legally correct, “The content in question has been part of the public domain for many years. It is standard practice for image libraries to distribute and provide access to public domain content, and it is important to note that distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it.” This is not unlike the fact that publishers sell texts of Shakespeare’s works all the time. This is only a problem if one or these publishers tries to sue someone else for also distributing Shakespeare’s works since anything can legally do so but, even then, the case would simply be dismissed since the item in question is not protected by copyright at all.
@@drmadjdsadjadi a small note about the Shakespear bit. Technically the work itself is public domain, but the actual printed/digitial copy that the publisher is selling is covered by copyright. Your free to make your own version of it, but you can't use theirs. A good modern example of something like this would be Taylor Swifts back catalogue. She doesn't own the rights to the back catalogue but owns the rights to the songs themselves. Thus she has been able to reproduce them all and release newer copies, as the copyright is split into several parts. One for the music/lyrics as written, and one for each individual performance of the songs.
I would argue that if I painted a picture and someone took a picture of that picture they would be stealing my art. Celebrities have a very carefully constructed image. One could argue that the image the celebrities have is a work of art. Also cooking in your suit, that gave me a laugh. Love your channel even if I don't always agree with you. I practice law in Canada. Our law is a bit different.
Isn't there a law that says you can't use someone's image without their consent? If not there should be, that would put an end to all this madness.
Where would that law draw the line? What if you took a photo of the Eiffel Tower? Would anyone in the crowd be entitled to sue you if you don't ask each and every one for permission to use that image? Would the rule be "the primary subjects of the image must consent to its use"? If so, that could mean that if I took a photo of a building, it's fine, but if I were to crop the photo, there can be problems. Not only that, zooming into the photo might be illegal while taking the photo is not.
@@rytan4516 If you want to publish that photo, then yes. Either get a permission of each of them, or blur out their faces. You can take a photo for private use though.
Interesting legal framework... In the country I live in a papparazi can take anyones picture in public and use it for news purposes, but cannot prevent the person itself from using it, as the right to the face (and with it the right to all pictures of that face) still remains with the person itself.
LeagleEagle, i have a question. If a celebrity had photosensitive epilepsy, and the paparazzi's constant flashing lights caused them to have a seizure, could they sue the paparazzi members for damages?
Yes, if they would win is a different conversation. It involves alit more context.
Perhaps only if they know the celebrity has this disability. One can plead ignorance to get the intent part of their charges dropped.
@@ZeldagigafanMatthew The Eggshell Skull Rule would apply. A person being exceptionally frail is not a valid defense in the case of personal injury.
Sue God for causing lightning while you're at it. Also if I ate some peanutes and you got a good whiff by walking past me, I am not liable.
@@RusticRonnie This is quite silly, it's very clear that people are asking if they have a solid case, not if they can theoretically sue.
Absolutely adore all your transitions into your sponsored segments. Flippin brilliant.
Excellent segue!!
What a weird thing to start the new year off with. Copyright law is nuts!
There probably isn't a good logical explanation for this, but I'll ask anyhow: if a photographer can stalk and harass a famous person and sell their image to a newspaper, why can't they also sell it in the form of a T-shirt? Unless the newspaper is distributed for free, it seems like it's a commercialization of someone else's image regardless.
They totally can, but they have to get permission first. Because if you didn’t need permission, then Ronald Reagan would become President again and change the rules. We in the USA fear actors becoming President again so we protect their interests.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the distinction here. You can take a photo of someone, and sell it to a tabloid and make money, but you can't sell it to a mug manufacturer? That seems ridiculous. You are still profiting off their image. Why is it different?
@@DeborahFishburn because welcome to the law? The distinction is in the law. That’s why it’s different. You do realize the law is entirely made up, right? By humans? The same species that brought us eating tide pods for lols?
Because showing pictures of Trump with Epstein in news isn't the same as making mugs with them?
@@KasumiRINA Well, in that the photographer is making money by selling the picture showing those faces, it kinda is.
When you mentioned the 50cent case I was hoping you would cover it. I’ve never heard of the case but usually when you go to a live event a part of the ticket/contract states that you can’t commercially profit from videos or images taken at the event. So couldn’t he countersue for that? I guarantee the NFL or other sports enterprise would if someone did this at one of their games/events.
I think that law needs overhauled with the advent of social media.
People profiting off of you without consent (I know it’s not required), then suing you when you post a photo of yourself from the non consensual photo.
An classic example of “the law as an ass”..the only way this should be allowed is if person can counter sue for a photographer making money of an image they didn’t give their permission to be made. unless a photographer has paid for exclusive use of a photo there is no way a photographer should be able stop a person for using a photo of themselves taken in public.
You have no right or expectation to privacy in public. Doesn't matter if it is a photo of you or if you walk by the background of a newscaster.
@@Raven1024 no but you should have “copyright” over your own image, fair use ( non commercial) is fine but if photographer/publisher makes money of your image how is that logically any different if they use a painting or a song you made without your permission?
@@pizzagogo6151 It's not your art. The picture is thier art whether it's you or a bowl of fruit or a rock.
@@Raven1024 you are mistaking that I care what the law says - I don't I care for what's fair & reasonable. Think about what your saying So taking a picture of someone's book & selling copies is not ok, taking a picture of new artist painting then selling copies also not ok..but a taking a photo of the actual person without permission making money of it is ok?
@@pizzagogo6151 Yes. Because people aren't art just because they exist. Photography is work. Other people shouldn't be able to steal it. If the photographer has the intuition to capture a particular moment in time in thier photo with thier camera. That is thiers. People's "image" doesn't mean a thing. You're an object in a world that was interesting for a second.
The thing is. If you're so obsessed with yourself that you want to use your own image...guess who has access to you 24/7 and could buy thier own camera and equipment and editing software? You. You could. Take your own image.
If they aren't coming out well and you want to use the professional one still that tells you right there the reason they keep ownership. Because they bought the equipment, the training, the software licenses...they are the professional.
Question; back in college a loooong time ago, I had to take photography as part of my graphic design curriculum. Part of that was contracts pertaining to model's permission, and likeness rights. Are celebrities not protected by laws pertaining to likeness rights?
In public view, from public property, the freedom of the press in the First Amendment takes precedence.
There's a difference between a person in the public eye and an everyday person. The latter enjoys more protection.
Paparazzi rely on the 1st Amendment. There is no expectation of privacy when you are in public. That is why they don't need any permission to take their photos. Model's permission only applies to commercial photography such as photoshoots, and for it to be a violation of likeness rights it needs to be done for exploitation.
If you are out in public somebody can take a photo or recording of you. although If you try to leave the area where they are doing it and they follow you continuing, that may constitute Harrassment, and if they are asked to stop and leave by the person who owns the property it becomes trespassing. Also if they take an upskirt photo or a photo that is otherwise lude. that is illegle. I think there are also some laws against photographs where the main subject is under the age of 16 if you do not have the parents permission.
Thats only for taking the photograph originally, 1st amendment doesn't give the photographer copyright protection. If Dua Lipas record company own the rights to her image/likeness there could be a fight to be had over who has rights to publish. Dua Lipa/record company should have the right to publish any likeness of herself without fear of copyright issues. She can't sue to have a photo removed, but can use any photo of herself however she sees fit, if she owns copyright on her image/likeness.
I mean the collaboration argument seems like one that could work, especially if said person were to put out a statement that each and every time they are seen in public or privately, they've purposely selected and crafted their image for any potential image to be taken. Due to their intentional sculpting of the setting where they might be photographed they are in fact an equal collaborator in all photographs of them and therefore share in ownership of said photographs.
The irony that legal eagle freely uses paparazzi images of celebrities in a video describing how celebrities can’t use paparazzi images of themselves without permission
I think it is really interesting how this feels like the opposite judgement of trademark and copyright protecting the Hollywood sign and the Eiffel Tower at night. Those are owned and a person taking the photos of them and profiting from them is violating the landmarks' respective owners intellectual property.
Just the usual property rights >>>>> human rights.
Those were deliberately created. A celebs likeness in a public place isn't.
Completely different situations. First, the Eiffel Tower isn't in the United States, so doesn't apply to US laws in any way. You can take and post pictures of the Hollywood sign, but what you can't do is put it on t-shirts and mugs and sell it. It is a work of art created by an artist who holds copyright.
This is a public figure in a public place who took a photographers work and used it as their own for commercial purposes. This is exactly how it should have gone.
^ So property still has more rights than a person.
@@obsidianmoon13 right. You can't profit from the Hollywood sign's image taken without permissionfrom the owner, but you can profit from a persons image taken without permission of the person. That is why I think it is interesting.
If the law says it's okay for someone else to have this level of control over an image of you (especially one you didn't ask to be made in the first place) then I want to change the law.
Changing this law would spell the end to things like televised sport, since images of people could not be broadcast without their consent, or without conferring some kind of publishing rights to anyone whose likeness was broadcast.
I would imagine when you buy a ticket to any type of event like that, you are waiving any rights to your likeness being broadcast somewhere in the fine print.
@@James-rq9qb All people in television sports know it’s gonna be on camera because they signed up or paid for it.
@@James-rq9qb
No, it would not. It's painfully obvious how some people here in the comments have never been to Europe.
It's simple: if someone is (one of) the main subject(s) of a picture (meaning if you're in the background of a large crowd, and as such are unrecognizable, it doesn't count), they have a right to their own likeness, and no-one can publish it in an effort to profit off of it (or post it to social media) unless explicit consent is given. This is in application of more general privacy laws, and the way it usually works is that the subject can ask for the picture to be retracted and/or is entitled to some form of compensation under damages (if they didn't notice, the picture just stays up until they catch on).
But the copyright is about owning the picture itself, and that always remains with the photographer, so a celebrity wouldn't be able to post a picture of themselves if it was taken by a paparazzi (maybe under a fair use exception to copyright, but they would have to provide actual commentary on the works). Since the paparazzi couldn't take, then publish that photo in the first place, though, this would never come up. If it did, the celebrity would have had to give consent, which they could leverage to obtain a juicy contract over shared copyright ownership. The paparazzi can always refuse, but if they do they've worked for nothing and would rather avoid being sued for harassment.
There, problem solved.
@@onemadscientist7305 Wrong. Europe doesn't have the first amendment. Being able to take pictures of people in public is firmly in the first amendment. Besides allowing paparazzas to take pictures of celebrities, the first amendment allows people to take pictures of police whom may or may not be acting lawfully.
I signed up for Hello Fresh late December and the crispy parm chicken was the first recipe I cooked. Sour cream instead of tomato sauce is a game changer.
My gawd, the segue to the ads are great!
We really need to drastically reform paparazzi laws. If your illegally harassing chasing and filming somone without thier permission they should be alowed to use those photos you took.
They should barly have any rights at all as they went across so many lines to get it
This is the correct approach if we want to change this, as opposed to trying to deal with it through copyright law.
Issue is, all of the lawsuits presented in this video have literally no illegality in the photos' acquirement. There was no violation of privacy, no trespassing, no harassment, and whoever is getting photographed in a public space isn't required to provide permission since they are in said public space.
@@YourFavouriteDraugr except we have paparazzi laws you may have missed and they break them all the time without punishment. These laws started after cases like princess Diana got killed because of paparazzi. Yet there are plenty of cases still to this day where they are let off with dangerous levels of harassment including traping the celebrities and blocking thier cars and not leting them leave. So again we need vastly stricter paparazzi rules where if they are caught pulling this they lose all rights to all images they have taken of celebrities. And this should even be used against organizations tmz should lose all their images and should be finned.
I mean, if a set of laws breaks the natural intuition of what is fair and just, maybe it's shitty law?
Or maybe they are shitty intuitions.
What is unfair about an artist, taking a photograph, legally, and it being profitable if it's a good one?
The law doesn't operate based on what you think is fair and just, Jeff.
I loved this this snip-it of Legal Eagle.
Very interesting and I’m copyrighting my own self likeness so I can sue anyone using me in an image… especially the police department using speed cameras and stop cameras…. That last part was a joke but still interesting on how far this rabbit hole can go
@LegalEagle you should discuss upcoming technology that could have major ramifications for copywrite law. Like the AI that was trained with millions of images to produce "original" artwork (called DALL-E 2). Or the AI that has been trained with millions of novels to write any story you ask it to (GTP-3) which can produce coherent stories and responses to questions. It can even write software in any coding language you want. But, how "original" are these? If an image is produced from an "artistic" amalgam of multiple works, then sold, would the original artists be due compensation? How would that even work? Would the AI have to track what "percentage" it is another's work to determine royalties?
I know this is a stretch, but haven't there been movements recently in laws to combat revenge porn that could be utilized to some effect in these instances. Essentially copyrighting your own likeness so you take legal ownership over materials distributed without your consent. Assuming I'm not talking nonsense, wouldn't such a law set a useful precedent?
But porn is different from news though. News (or more generally "the press") are protected by the 1st amendment.
No we made those videos you agreed an now it’s free game 🤣
@@sledgex9 Porn is also protected by the first amendment, except in cases where its explicitly carved out as an exception (child porn, for example).
The anti-revenge-porn laws are another exception being carved out, and that does indeed lead to the possibility of using those laws as a defense against other forms of photographic/video harassment, such as paparazzi. I have no idea if such a defense would actually get passed a judge but its not a bad idea to attempt it if you've got nothing better.
It would also depend on the exact text of the law in question, and how vague it is with its definition of "revenge porn" - ie: does it have to be sexually explicit in some fashion or is there room to interpret other forms of harassment media under the law? Its also something that will vary by jurisdiction as each state has its own revenge porn laws (and I'm pretty sure some states still don't have any - hell some states still don't have laws against more traditional forms of sexual harassment).
@@altrag Let me be more explicit. First I am not an expert on US law. What I meant is this: Revenge porn is truly a private moment. The one filming can't claim some kind of protected speech that can overshadow the other participants rights and will allow him to post the video without consent or that will shield him from legal fire. On the other hand, a photographer filming a newsworthy person in their daily life (private or not) can directly claim that he is part of the media and he's reporting news. The newsworthy person can't realistically shut him up. The photographer, in this context, has an explicit right from the constitution. The revenge-porn filmer does not.
@@sledgex9 I 100% disagree. Being a 'newsworthy person' does not make otherwise mundane activities 'news'. While I agree that a person in public can have no expectation not to be *incidentally* photographed, such as appearing in someone's photo of a building or landmark, the law needs to be made to distinguish between that and photos/video where an unconsenting person who is engaged in mundane behavior is made the *focus* of a commercial work. Basically, in my mind, paparazzi should be illegal unless: a) they distribute their photos for free or otherwise non-commercially, b) they photograph only news-worthy *events* (a Kardashian at the supermarket wouldn't qualify - but a Kardashian at a Klan rally would), or c) they somehow get celebrities or their agents to sign a waiver of consent. Basically, we need a set of criteria similar to fair use that governs people's likenesses, to protect people from having their likeness commercialized without their consent.
What a mess. I blame the lawyers.
You can't do that - they'll sue.
I had a photo of me (totally unfamous) hiking in a national park lifted from a friends social media account and used by a paper to illustrate their article on a hiking ban in another state. I did try to persuade them to go after the paper for compensation, I knew I did not own the copyright of my own fizzgog but my friend certainly owns the copyright to her picture.
I absolutely hate that someone can legally take a picture of me that I did not consent to and may not even be aware of. That they have sole ownership of that picture, and I have none. I have no power to remove the picture. I hate that. I am a very private person. I don't want my face in a gallery or in a news broadcast or whatever--even if i am not the focus of the image. I know some countries have laws that require the nonconsenting subjects in the photo blurred, and I wish we would do the same.
The law should be changed so that if you are a subject you should have shared rights unless you have specified otherwise. The fact that you can be a performer in a work of art, but not an author is a bit messy. It would be different if it was just a bunch of random people, but taking pictures with a clear intent of one particular person should be joint author.
Agreed, but we'll never get the big commercial interests to agree to be restricted in their parasitic existance like that...
Yeah, no. If you didn't create the work, subject or not, you don't own the work.
Gotta love entitled kids who're like "There oughtta be a law" when the reality is they just want to have their feelings of spoiled entitlement validated.
@@SonsOfLorgar then we should take their pictures and sell them
@@TacComControl You sound like you're part of the paparazzi.
Capitalism really is a cancer.
@@TacComControl No one likes your shitty backwards morals and calling people entitled just for standing up for other people who may be getting screwed over by a poorly thought out law - makes no sense. I don't think you know what that word means
"Yeah we're stalking and photographing you without your consent but you don't own the picture that depicts you because someone else shot the picture. Yes the Papparazzi stalked you and violated your privacy, but you don't have rights of the Image someone else took of you without consent."
"privacy" it's a public space though. lol.
heck the paparazzi(I think they give all photographers a bad name, that and straight men who only shoot bourdoir)
but you're gonna need a stronger argument than that.
No privacy was violated in any of the above lawsuits, however. Public space laws apply to everyone equally for a reason.
Dude your transitions to your sponsorships are hilarious!!!!
A few years ago, I had a similar issue (except I'm not a celebrity, so not newsworthy). A photographer took a photo of me and was selling the image. However, they took the photo during a ticketed performance, rather than on the street, which may make a legal difference (yes, I was a performer, not a member of the audience). We had to sign model release forms for the official photographers at the event, so I was utterly confused as to whether or not this photographer could legally sell photos of my image in this particular circumstance.
Ah, another reason to hate copyright law. Like many things in society, I think it needs some reform.
You are correct that there are plenty of reasons to hate copyright law, and that it needs to be reformed. I wrote my PhD about some of the ways in which I think it needs to be reformed, and the underlying principles which should guide that reform. This is not part one of the parts that needs to be reformed, however - but better developing the underlying principles that should guide the reform would also reveal why this part is actually fine!
@@James-rq9qb I'd be interested in reading that thesis, if it's publicly available. For a time, I would have agreed that only the original artist being able to profit from the use of their artwork made sense, but I feel like that right has been so abused by entertainment companies (now extending far beyond the life of the author, impoverishing our cultural heritage, by preventing people from riffing on fixtures of our shared experience) that it may need amendment. Japanese entertainment corporations seem to get by fine, and still produce substantial amounts of cultural products, despite doujin artists being allowed to produce derivative works freely, so I don't think that rethinking this approach has to be destructive.
The fact that paparazzi are incentivized by the current structure to stalk celebrities to acquire candid photos of them just going about their lives is distressing, but wouldn't actually be challenged by my above point, though it would at least allow the celebs to gain some direct benefit from the behavior. While their financial incentives may be lessened if others were allowed to post derivative images, they'd still have at least some incentive to continue hounding people. The only real way for that to change is for consumers to choose not to purchase the distasteful results of their abuse of press rights.
@@James-rq9qb Bro if someone sued me for using a picture they took of me without my consent, especially if I was just going about my day, I’d probably do everything in my power to make that person’s life a living hell. I don’t really care that it’s within their legal right, the law is simply at odds with what people consider moral behavior in this case.
It would be different if the photographer asked for permission. But as the law stands currently it is condoning stalker like behavior.
That's likely because people's moral intuitions are misfiring in this case. Likely because of the distaste people have for paparazzi (fair enough!). In that case, it wouldn't be so much that the intuitions are wrong, just that they are being misdirected at copyright law rather than at the paparazzi.
@@frankytheimmortal8527 Franky, the problem is, within public spaces (or, places that can be 'easily' seen from public spaces) where such photos were taken, consent for being in them is not required.
Public spaces, and their laws, exist for a reason. Photography in public spaces is not in any way a violation of anyone's privacy rights, for said rights do not apply in them.
I’m kinda interesting in seeing Legaleagle do a for/against on copyright law/intellectual property, especially copyright/intellectual property in the digital space.
Like I’ve heard some interesting for/againsts from across the political spectrum
As a photographer, if the picture was not taken with explicit consent (bar big public event such as red carpet stuff) and the person is both the focus and recognizable; The photographer is in the wrong. They can only get away with it because of money and of the broken america law system that make lawsuit far too common imo.
"The copyright office"
*Picture of the patent & trademark office main building and plaza*
😝
Good video and love your analysis, I just got a chuckle out of that part.
If I screenshotted a picture of her, they would call it an NFT
If I downloaded the screenshot I'd be called a pirate.
It is kind of weird that a person can’t post a photo of themselves. I understand the copyright issues but still.
Late stage capitalism. We are no longer citizens. We are commodities.
@@TheMitchellExpresssmoothbrain take. What about photographers getting the rights to the photos they take indicates people are no longer citizens? Are you opposed to intellectual property rights? Do you think anyone who appears in a photo should be given the copyright over it? Photographers could never make money except with nature shots if that was the case. They couldn't even share their own photos if subjects had control over them.
Nothing weird about it. The people who made the work own the work. The photographer took the photo, they own the photo, and if they did so under the specifics of working for, say, an agency, the agency owns the work.
Don't be that entitled kid who thinks they can take anything and everything from everyone else for your own convenience.
It's funny the dudes defending it think photographers can't make money without suing people.
The lawsuit for that broken camera has a cheaper outcome, keep crying about paparazzi getting stiffed.
@@TacComControl don't be a tool
I think there should be a slice of Fair User/Dealing that exempts you if you are the subject of a photo that you didn't specifically commission
Not trying to take away from how interesting and informative this video is (the usual case for Devin's videos) but the suit while in the kitchen really got me 😂
How can someone not at least partially own any picture with their likeness in it? If a person sells a picture of me to another person are they not deriving monetary gain from my likenesses? I'm not trying to be combative here I am honestly curious.
There's just not much property interest in liknesses. US property law, broadly, indexed property to labor (whoever makes something owns it, basically). This is intuitive for most things, and while it is correct to be sceptical about how far that extends to intangible objects (like things that are copyrightable), in this case the princple is still appropriate: it was the photographer who did the work to create the photo, so it is them to whom it should belong.
It is different to tangible property insofar as tangible property is what is called natural property, whereas copyright is what is called statutory property (e.g., it only counts as property because we have agreed to treat it as property - for a fixed, finite amount of time - in order to incentivise its creation).
@@James-rq9qb Ok, I'm with you so far, but how does this lead to it being ok to sue someone for using a picture of themselves. Common sense seems to say that this should be thrown out of court. It is ridiculous to have to pay someone for an unwanted picture of yourself.
My favorite celebrity defense against the paparazzi was Danial Radcliffe, who wore the same clothes for like a year so all the pictures of him were worthless since they were all pretty much the same.
Paparazzi: *takes pics of celebs without their permission
Also Paparazzi: "Hey! You're using my pics without my permission! I'll sue you!"
Wait, am a little bit confused:
Taking a picture of someone without their permission, putting it on a t-shirt, and selling it ,is bad, but
taking a picture of someone without their permission, putting it on a newspaper, and selling it, is fine?
Why are those treated different. Is this simply a case of explicit freedom of the press? But there's also explicit freedom of expression, so why doesn't that kick in for the t-shirt? Is it simply that scrutiny re restricting the press is far stricter?
Thanks.
In theory, the great value that these celebrities generate should be shared amongst a whole ecosystem of other creatives and technicians, whether photographers, makeups artists, designers, stylists, journalists, etc. The reality of capital is that it doesn't work that way at all, and the law tries to catch up in imperfect ways where we end up with totally absurd situations like this. OF COURSE she should be able to share the photo of herself, but OF COURSE photographers (even sleazy tabloid photographers whom I loathe) should get paid better in general. I guess neither can be true
Paparazzi should not legally be allowed to own pictures of strangers.
Gooooood luck regulating that.
@@YourFavouriteDraugr i mean the LEGAL RIGHTS to an nonconsenting photo of an individual who clearly wishes otherwise, not possession of a photo
The gavel on the cutting board was a nice touch🙂
I feel like celebrities should be able to sue for paparazzi distributing photographs of them for the same reason it's illegal to do so for the eiffel tower. The celebrity's image(or makeup) is a work of art and should be treated as such
Does anybody else love that he is cooking in his suit during his hello fresh sponsorship?
And the gavel on the chopping board! 🤣
Okay, I'm a bit confused on one point.
I'm aware that the photographer is the copyright holder of the picture, however, if you take pictures of a human, you need their consent to even take the picture, let alone publish it, in the first place. Right? If it's in a public place I believe that can be an exception, but if someone sneaks up on my house and takes a picture through my window, there is no way they can actually legally distribute that picture without my consent, right? I mean, that's stalking.
It is documenting their trespass so they do not tend to do that. If they were on the sidewalk and had a scope into a kitchen, then they are free to do so in the USA. Creepy but not illegal.
Depends. In the US (though it can vary state to state), it typically doesn't matter where you are; what matters is where the photographer is. There has been a case, for example, where a photographer climbed a tree (which was in a public place) to see over the fence and into the backyard of a person's private residence, to snap a photo of them sunbathing. This was deemed legal, since the person had 'chosen to sunbath in view of a public place,' and so therefore had 'no reasonable expectation of privacy.'
@@James-rq9qb damn, trump had the right idea, them mexicans won't see me naked
@@James-rq9qb I was totally wondering about that, i.e. if the person being photographed was on their own property or some sort of private property and out of normal viewing unless using a long lens or climbing a tree, if it would still be legal. I guess it depends on the law in whichever state you're in
Wrong. In public spaces, consent is not necessary, and it applies to everyone, equally, regardless of status, name, look, etc.
As for the second half, that's a whole separate set of laws completely untouched by the subject of this video. If you can be seen through your window from a public space, you can not have expectancy of privacy, for example.
Wait, if taking the photo is the sole act of establishing copyright, what about when you ask a kind stranger to take a photo of you in public? If you post that to social media could that kind stranger turn around, be not so kind, and sue you for copyright infringement?
I just really love how you segue into the sponsor part of the video. :-)
I think this is a good time for copyright reform on all so-called intellectual properties and companies. We got too many people being sued for no damn reason and a lot of ambulance chases just looking for money. So what if I play a song in the background on my social media page or at a amateur sporting venue as long as I give the description of who owns that song at set sporting venue when I play it.
The artist who spent hours and hours composing the song only to have it used without permission. You need to obtain permission. "Exposure" doesn't fly as a payment.
This makes me want to write my congressman and suggest a law creating a carve out that says any paparazzi photo taken without the subject's permission should not have any copyright protection. Someone smarter than me and with legal training can figure out how to define "paparazzi" such that it doesn't include actual journalists or legitimate artists.
The simple solution is to grand non-exclusive ownership of any image of a person to any person identifiably in the image. If it's a picture of you, you own it just as much as the person who held the camera. Done and done.
@@Rystefn How in the world do you regulate that, could you attempt to begin to figure out?
There is literally not enough time AND money in the world for all of the lawsuits you'd create.
I wouldn't so far as to remove all copyright protection, but there definitely should be a fair-use exemption for the subject of a photo to use the photo for their own personal use, which would include personal social media posts.
That's still a little vague since celebrity social media is often at least overseen if not explicitly curated by whatever agency they work under, but a legal battle between two major companies over a copyright claim to some third party's image is a very different beast to a legal battle between a corporation and an individual over the individual's own image. So it wouldn't entirely remove this kind of idiotic lawsuit, but it would at least require the plaintiff to do a bit of due diligence in finding out whether a particular social media feed is owned by the celebrity or by their agency before filing it.
@@altrag Fair use exemption with the option to waive that right would be the obvious route to go. Work-for-hire would basically be completely unchanged, as you'd sign the waiver and have no rights to the photos. But paparazzi photos taken without consent would automatically be free-to-use by the subject. Still not perfect, but it would put an end to lawsuits like this and maybe bleed a parasitic industry a bit closer to dry.
@@Rystefn I think thats a great idea, but you'd have to make it more specific to the "subject" of the picture, not just anyone in it, because then you run into issues where someone happens to be behind you in a photo at disney world, and now your being sued over it.
It would be so damn easy to remedy this via law!
Was the foto taken under a contract, with the person on it consenting? Then the photographer owns the copyright and can do with it as the contract says. Do you take the photo legally but without contract, permission or even consent? Then you and the subject are joint owners. You could go from there
You should look into the case of Luis Sanchez from Salt Lake, Utah. He was falsely arrested and later attorney's forced him to plea guilty which he refuse to do so. He was told to arrive at 9:00 and the court started his trial at 8:45 am, 5 minutes later they filed a bench warrant for his arrest. There is video of the proceedings and it is clear they framed him.
Its interesting, because while I feel they are infringing on the celebrity's portrait right, the paps aren't wrong that social media is a business for these people. And in some cases they're clearly posing for the photographer. It might have been clearer if Dua Lipa had f.e. used the picture for her album art.
_social media is a business for these people_
Yeah,... but is it the kind of 'business' that the U.S. Constitution was supposed to protect? How does this advance _anything_ valuable in the world? If the paparazzi vanished entirely, the whole world would be a better place, I'd think.
IMHO, if this is the law, then the law needs to be changed. If you take a photograph of a person, then that person should have the right to post it to social media - not to _sell_ the photo, but to use it as they wish, even if they happen to make money from social media.
(Using it as a picture for album art? If you're _selling_ the picture with the album, then no. If you're just using the picture to promote your album, then I'd say that's fine. It's a picture of _you,_ after all. And if you're hiring a photographer to take that picture, then that should be how he gets his money.)
That means that everyone in the picture - even the random people passing by - would be able to post that picture. Would that put the paparazzi out of business? Gee, that would be a shame, wouldn't it? Personally, I'd be _happy_ to see the end of them. (Of course, they could still get legitimate jobs as paid photographers.)
But this _wouldn't_ put legitimate news reporters out of business. The news isn't just images. And again, I wouldn't allow _selling_ the image. So incidental people in a news video wouldn't be able to sell that video - even just the part of the video where they appear - to another news site. But post it on Facebook or something? Sure. Why not?
Copyright law is so weird. I can take a photo of a celebrity without their knowledge or consent. I can License that photo to a magazines, which can then print and sell millions of copies... but I can't print and sell that same photo millions of times myself? And the celebrity can't use that photo without my knowledge or consent. 🤦♂️
Yes, you don't have the rights to something that someone else created and you contributed no labor towards. Copyright is screwed up in a broad array of ways, but this is one case that it currently gets correct.
Other laws specific to paparazzi behavior might be valuable, though.
@@James-rq9qb am I missing something in your reply? In this hypothetical, I took the photo, AND I either created the copies or paid a distributor to do so. How would that not be my labour?
@@kojiromusashi13 Ah, I see the confusion. I said "You can't" to mean "A person can't". I intended to refer to the celebrity, who couldn't claim the right to the photographer's labour.
Is there a way to make it so that all pictures taken of a person are automatically a collaborative effort between the photographer(s) and subject? Such as the subject making a public statement of some sort prior to the photo(s) being taken?
No.