DSLRUsers.com

Even legitimate artists are having to defend themselves, although some people might suspect this is more about the success of the picture.


http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1124702013171420.xml&coll=3

Matters such as this do not stop with photographing people. Property is also a concern. many years back a Sydney photographic stock library licensed an image of a suburban house for use in advertsing for an insurance company. To better fit the layout the picture was reversed left to right and was included on posters on the sides of buses.

Thye house changed hands and the new owbner was in the hairdresser's having her hair done. Reflected in the hairdresser's mirror she saw her house drive by on a bus. There was no mention in the deeds of the house that it had been used for an advertisement and the new owner filed a suit. She got an out pof court settlement of $15,000.00 which was a fair amount back then.

Cheers,

I wonder Sheetshooter if the result of that case was because it (the subject house) was on private property, not walking around on public property? I have no idea, just thought I would ask.

Bob, I think the most telling part of the linked article was " a number of prints had been sold for $20k" and " the subject would like a share".

Glen, it may just be that the success of the photo meant it had been widely seen.

But I think there may be something in the Hassidic faith about graven images, too.

Bob, you have a greater faith in human nature than me, I think it had to do with "a number of images have been sold for $20,000"

I think that might be closer to the truth.... I'm always a bit sus of people who make essentially frivolous civil claims. Although it IS the U.S.

If you recall a few years ago a photo of Andrew Ettinghausens doodle made it into a magazine. He sued and was awarded some rediculous payout (I think in the hundreds of thousands). Around the same time someone tried to murder a friend of mine, firing 48 bullets into his Police car. He was awarded $2000 compensation by a court...

Makes you shake your head...

It does raise important issues about whether we own our own image, and whether if someone else profits from it we should get a share.

It's a legitimate issue in intellectual property rights.

Raskill, that is one of those discrepancies which is just unbelievable I remember the ET one was a jury decision from memory with Tom Hughes against Consolidated Press for the first time since being off their retainer. I know of individuals who have left the force over lesser incedents than your friends, that really is a life changing event. Either workers comp or victims compensation have no idea, I wouldn't like one bullet missing me, little alone forty eight

Neither of the examples cited by rjlhughes or sheetshooter have any bearing on Australian law. The first is completely outside the jurisdiction and the second is an out-of-court settlement.

rjlhughes and sheetshooter, if you'd like to continue the ethical debate from the previously locked thread, that's up to the moderators, but please do not infer from your examples that there is any legal basis in australia to support the ethical arguments put forward.

As to the other case examples, I am unfamiliar with those cases and would hesitate to form any opinion based on third-hand information.

Thaddeus,

I don't think I suggested that the American case did have a bearing on Australian law.

It's interesting for the issues it raises, though, and it has prompted some discussion so far. I hope there's no harm done.

One of the interesting areas of Intellectual Property Rights is how you attribute value to different source bits of the finished product.

That's very applicable to music where samples of other songs are used, and I'd think, visual design where different bits are put together in Photoshop.

But the question that fascinates me is: do we own the rights to our own distinctive appearance? I wonder if we can trademark our face?

Thaddeus thanks for clearing that up.

Bob, that is not the reason for your avatar is it? To get some sort of common use record up know before the big case

As I have read somewhere, I believe your public image is fair game unless someone uses it to discredit you or for well known individuals to trade on their fame and reputation Eg a shot of Megan Gale walking into DJ's. Maybe someone who is more familiar with this could clarify?

If anyone could make money out of pictures of my face I'd be very interested to find out how!

Hi,

for those that may be interested in seeing the photo, it can be found at the Guardian newspaper web site. It was a finalist of the Citigroup photography prize.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,642599,00.html

Cheers,

Radar
(okay to post a link to a page with the said photo?? )

I looked at it this morning but refrained from linking with all the discussions about copyrights

Great link, thanks Radar. Some very interesting pics there.

If I 3d modelled your face, it wouldn't be your face anymore, would it?

Could I then make money out of your face that way?

Well Leigh, they can do face transplants can't they?.....I'd suggest you stick with yours rather than go for mine.

I suspect this is why Hollywood likes cartoons as features. They can copyright the actors faces.

kipper wrote:I looked at it this morning but refrained from linking with all the discussions about copyrights

Yeah, thought about it a while prior to posting, but then found the link for the Citigroup Photography Prize. It is a newspaper, and I do attribute the link to The Guardian and the Citigroup Photography Prize, so I would consider this fair use, but IANAL. I'm happy to get rid of the link, but then are we starting to get too paranoid, but that's would be the subject of another topic

Bob, there certainly are a number of other interesting photos for the prize.

Cheers,

Radar.

There's a difference between linking to a Guardian page and just grabbing the image and putting it up without attribution. I think, although Thaddeus can correct me that in the US this would be called fair dealing.

The photo is in the public domain already. I think the case is about damages rather than suppressing publication.

kipper wrote:I looked at it this morning but refrained from linking with all the discussions about copyrights

As Thaddeus clarified the other day, there are no copyright concerns in either linking to another web-page, linking to an image on another site, or embedding a link to that image in your post on DSLRUSERS.com.

However, Gary does ask that images on other sites (excluding our photo sites) are not embedded but rather are linked to.

rjlhughes
If we owned the intellectual rights to our faces then I'd love to know how the Government got to use mine on my passport!

rjlhughes wrote:Well Leigh, they can do face transplants can't they?.....I'd suggest you stick with yours rather than go for mine.

I suspect this is why Hollywood likes cartoons as features. They can copyright the actors faces.

I don't think you can copyright a face.
You can protect a likeness of someone, but seeing as there is a universally infinite amount of combinations that our DNA can produce for the way we look, there is by that logic a very real possibility that there is someone else who looks like you in the world.

That said, I could be modelling them.

Or, I could be modelling someone who I've thought or dreamed up, and usually when we do that, it's a combination of elements from people we've seen... a skin colour here, a blemish there, some eyes from someone else, the lips of another, etc.

If I modelled your face and made money from it, you could argue that it's you but you'd have no proof, barring this conversation we're having now.

If I were to model Tom Cruise or Russell Crowe, provided I change prominent features on their faces, how could you prove I modelled them?

A John Hedgecoe book I have suggests that the famous profile of Elizabeth 2 which I think he may have taken is the most used image in human history.

What did Joan Rivers say - she'd seen the face so often on stamps that when she met Her Majesty she wanted to lick the back of her head.

Leigh wrote:seeing as there is a universally infinite amount of combinations that our DNA can produce for the way we look, there is by that logic a very real possibility that there is someone else who looks like you in the world

Leigh did you fail maths at school? If there is an infinite amount of combinations that's a ridiculously super huge gigantic never ending number which actually mitigates AGAINST the outcome you define as "a very real possibility" given there is a considerably smaller subset of those infinite number of combinations expressed in the facial features of the individuals present on this planet - sheeeesh you arty types

Please accept my apologies for being anal about this

How about I combine both your face and Bob's face to see the sort of combination we get?

Nnnnsic wrote:How about I combine both your face and Bob's face to see the sort of combination we get?

Answer is obvious though - a face that conveys twice as much gravitas (yes it's a real word - now where is that dictionary )

stubbsy wrote:
Answer is obvious though - a face that conveys twice as much gravitas (yes it's a real word - now where is that dictionary )

gravitas n : formality in bearing and appearance; "he behaved with great dignity" syn: dignity, lordliness

Is that you

Radar

Leigh, speaking of combining faces - do many people say you look like your father?

I'll let that question hang, although I'll assure you it's not a reflection on your paternity!

My face reflects gravity rather than gravitas.....

Maybe we should all walk around with a big fat © on our heads :S

What about people who look alike? Or can a parent sue their child and claim their earnings if the child ends up being a model? The parent could claim their share as the child would be using the parent's DNA, which helped form their face, to earn $$$.

Alright so that idea is a bit too far fetched

The whole topic has been blown out of its proportions. There is too much political correctness these days in Australia turning it almost into a police state. I don't want to live in another USSR, I had to do that for 18 yrs of my life and it was not pleasant, believe me.

Anyone who is not on their private property is a fair game.

Intrusive? You stepped out of your home's front door you are there for a display, you are there to be viewed (photographed).

Public toilets could be an exception

Alex

Alex,

I think we're talking about whether you can copyright your face at this stage, or whether you own it.


I also wonder - does anyone know whether this bloke being a Hassidic Jew had anything to do with his objection?

rjlhughes wrote:Alex,

I think we're talking about whether you can copyright your face at this stage, or whether you own it.

Exactly, which is why, I believe if you are showing your face in public domain where people can see it than it is allowed to be photographed and sold.

If I take a photo of a famous guitar player, say Mark Knopfler at a concert and manage to sell it to a third party I would be liable to be sued because I took that photo at a concert which organised by the promoter who owns the copyright to that concert. If I, however, took a photo of MK walking on a beach, I could sell it to anyone and make whatever profit I wished.



Alex

I once said to Mark Knopfler - at least no one says you got where you did on your looks......

the look on his face was priceless.

And we got it on camera, I think.

I probably wouldn't do that now.

Bob:

http://agitlits.m6.net/NikonD70/mk1.htm

http://agitlits.m6.net/NikonD70/mk2.htm

Alex

Excellent shots Alex!

And I think he gets better looking as he gets older and a bit fatter in the face - if only the rest of us did.

rjlhughes wrote:Excellent shots Alex!

And I think he gets better looking as he gets older and a bit fatter in the face - if only the rest of us did.

Thanks, Bob. I was a bit disappointed with the quality though. They banned me using the bigger (70-300) focal range and I had to resort to 18-70, which was still better than nothing.

Not only is he looking better, but I reckon his music just gets better and better.

Cheers
Alex

rjlhughes wrote:I also wonder - does anyone know whether this bloke being a Hassidic Jew had anything to do with his objection?

There is a very good chance that may be the case. Hasidic Jews generally do not want public attention, and this may be at the heart of the objection.

For those who are not familiar with Hasidic Judism, try Googling terms such as hasidic, noahide, congress... Also, have a look around for customs, traditions. lifestyle. etc. This subject matter goes very off topic and is only put forward as extra reading.
Bob, do you know of any cases out there that are possibly not quite so... err... tainted?

Cheers

I can hear the Brooklyn accents:

"You don't own my foice, I own my foice, whose been lookin after it for all dese years? Not you buddy....if you make money out of my foice it's my money!"

(Not a very good NYC accent perhaps - but you can get the attitude I imagine.)

Of course he is probably a pious and well spoken man - that's just my imagination.

rjlhughes wrote:Even legitimate artists are having to defend themselves, although some people might suspect this is more about the success of the picture.


http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1124702013171420.xml&coll=3

so its ok for 'legitimate' artist to use hidden cameras, but not for everybody else?

Well that's right Genji,

is it OK?


that's one of the things that makes this an interesting case.

Do you know Paul Strand's work? He poineered the hidden camera for art, so there is a precedent in America.

Although when you look at the picture it does look like the man's looking back at the camera.

Thaddeus,

It is difficult to see that the matter of Property Rights does not come under Australian Jurisdiction in light of the fact that the matter of which I made mention went to Court but that the parties came to a suitable arrangement prior to a determination from the Court.

I photograph other people's property - homes and customised motor-cycles in particular - on a daily basis and for each and every subject I have the owner sign a Property Release granting to me (or my Company or Clent) certain Publishing Rights to use photographs of their property for certain uses.

In the cited case it was a matter of the Home in the image being part of the endorsement of a particular product (insurance in this case) in an advertisement. A very commercial use of the image indeed.

Cheers,

sheetshooter, I did not dismiss the property case on the basis of jurisdiction. I dismissed it on the basis that it was an out-of-court settlement.

Thanks very much for clarifying that Thaddeus,

It did surprise me because in the brief way that I have come to know you and respect your comments I found it a mite confusing.

Cheers,

P.S.: By the way, it is never my intention to be agent provocateur ot to migrate closed issues to new threads. It was ONLY my intent to point out that there are not only Rights issues relating to depicting persons, but to their property as well.

So do people own the rights to images of their property?

Bob
I am aware of the work of Paul Strand...but am not aware of any hidden camera work that he carried out? Are you sure you have the right photographer in mind? Perhaps you mean Erich Salamon who photographed socialites with a hidden small camera. Maybe I have missed a chapter in Strands career?

Matt,

Do you know his wonderful picture of the blind woman?

This is from The Furtive Gaze, from the Museum of Contemporary Photography:

"Meanwhile, many artists began using stealth along with the improved technology of photography to capture compellingly spontaneous portraits. Early twentieth-century photographers such as Paul Strand and Ben Shahn modified their cameras with decoy lenses and right angle viewfinders in order to photograph people clandestinely on the streets of New York. In the late 1930s Walker Evans took his 35mm Contax into New York’s subways and covertly photographed his fellow passengers, creating Many Are Called, a remarkable body of work that resonates through the unguarded expressions of his subjects. Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s, photographers such as Garry Winogrand, Robert Frank, and William Klein immersed themselves in the bustle of the city and captured poignantly candid moments in the lives of many unsuspecting strangers."

http://www.mocp.org/exhibitions/2003/05 ... ve_gaz.php

Bob
He used stealth to photograph a blind women. Is the man a bloody idiot!

ha ha (I've needed a laugh) .......no he was an artist!

do you know the shot?

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/ob ... 41970.html


I don't know if that was taken out of the side of the camera but
if it is it's clever because you don't know if that eye is seeing him.

The mirror reflecting the mirror thing....

Matt. K wrote:Bob
He used stealth to photograph a blind women. Is the man a bloody idiot!

Glen