This is not how it works. Paparazzi that take her image own the rights to the image. Not Taylor Swift. They make the money on the image when they sell it and Taylor Swift gets nothing out of the sale and has no rights on that transaction. If you’re in public you can be photographed. If a photographer takes an image and releases it to public domain, the subjects of the image will have no say in it unless the photographer broke some other law. (Eg peeping Tom laws or stalking)
I believe that your statements are only true for public figures. I’m pretty sure non-public figures retain the right to photos of themselves (unless they aren’t the main subject in the photograph).
Negative. Go take headshots at a photo place. You don’t have the right to make copies of your own headshot without permission from that photo place. Your own headshot would literally be you as the primary subject. Yet you still don’t have rights to it unless your contract with that photographer says otherwise.
In your own link the first answers even states it…
The photographer is normally the sole owner of the copyright in the photograph.
Subjects having any rights to the photo is rare, short of other laws being broken.
Edit: Hell my own kids school pictures. I have to purchase a digital copy of the photo to get a release from the company to make my own prints. EVEN ON MY OWN PRINTER.
Sorry my bad, I was speaking to pictures taken in a public setting, but didn’t clarify. When you get headshots done you are giving the photographer the rights.
Generally, you can take any photos you want of people when they are in a public location, like a park, a beach or a city square. It’s perfectly legal since they have elected to place themselves in a public location and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you snap a hundred pictures of people at a political rally, a marathon or a rock concert in the park, all is well and good.
[…]
For example, if you photograph a couple kissing on the beach and publish the photo in the newspaper, they cannot complain. They have no claim against you even if one of the two happens to be married to someone else and the marriage ends because of the photo.
So even though that couple is the direct foreground subject of the image, the photographer is NOT liable for not only taking the picture, publishing the picture, but ALSO any damages the picture caused by being published. This is why the paparazzi are also protected.
In the previous post the photographer has the rights because it’s their photo, not because you’re giving them any rights.
Taking photos and the right for commercial use of the photos are two different things. The reason why film crews/photographers generally ask for people to sign releases is because it’s not clear cut. While the US is generally more forgiving, it’s not a guarantee.
Right… So back to the topic discussion rather than adding extra shit… Someone taking pictures and putting it through AI… There’s no problem. They own the rights to that photo and all derivative works (except for any cases where it outright violates a law, peeping tom/stalking/etc…). Public figure or not.
After that it can get gray (but I never brought sale or commercial AI use as a thing… Not sure why people assume I did). But it’s quite rare where a sold picture cause a photographer problems. Even if the subjects didn’t necessarily consent.
Some other countries might have problems with that and have different laws on the books. But at this point in the world it’s really not hard to have a shell company in a territory/country that doesn’t have such laws… Then it no longer matters again. Good like finding the photographer to sue.
This is not how it works. Paparazzi that take her image own the rights to the image. Not Taylor Swift. They make the money on the image when they sell it and Taylor Swift gets nothing out of the sale and has no rights on that transaction. If you’re in public you can be photographed. If a photographer takes an image and releases it to public domain, the subjects of the image will have no say in it unless the photographer broke some other law. (Eg peeping Tom laws or stalking)
I believe that your statements are only true for public figures. I’m pretty sure non-public figures retain the right to photos of themselves (unless they aren’t the main subject in the photograph).
Stackexchange conversation about this.
Negative. Go take headshots at a photo place. You don’t have the right to make copies of your own headshot without permission from that photo place. Your own headshot would literally be you as the primary subject. Yet you still don’t have rights to it unless your contract with that photographer says otherwise.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/who-owns-the-copyrights-for-headshots--1029175.html
In your own link the first answers even states it…
Subjects having any rights to the photo is rare, short of other laws being broken.
Edit: Hell my own kids school pictures. I have to purchase a digital copy of the photo to get a release from the company to make my own prints. EVEN ON MY OWN PRINTER.
Sorry my bad, I was speaking to pictures taken in a public setting, but didn’t clarify. When you get headshots done you are giving the photographer the rights.
Still negative.
https://legalbeagle.com/8581945-illegal-pictures-people-permission.html
[…]
So even though that couple is the direct foreground subject of the image, the photographer is NOT liable for not only taking the picture, publishing the picture, but ALSO any damages the picture caused by being published. This is why the paparazzi are also protected.
In the previous post the photographer has the rights because it’s their photo, not because you’re giving them any rights.
Edit: Typo
Taking photos and the right for commercial use of the photos are two different things. The reason why film crews/photographers generally ask for people to sign releases is because it’s not clear cut. While the US is generally more forgiving, it’s not a guarantee.
More details
Right… So back to the topic discussion rather than adding extra shit… Someone taking pictures and putting it through AI… There’s no problem. They own the rights to that photo and all derivative works (except for any cases where it outright violates a law, peeping tom/stalking/etc…). Public figure or not.
After that it can get gray (but I never brought sale or commercial AI use as a thing… Not sure why people assume I did). But it’s quite rare where a sold picture cause a photographer problems. Even if the subjects didn’t necessarily consent.
Some other countries might have problems with that and have different laws on the books. But at this point in the world it’s really not hard to have a shell company in a territory/country that doesn’t have such laws… Then it no longer matters again. Good like finding the photographer to sue.