I don't really understand why this is a story, especially one on HN. Photographers own their photos, not their subjects. This is hardly novel.

Questions of jurisprudence are occasionally raised on here. The story surprised me, and in this day and age, I suspect there's a problem worth solving in this. If I stood outside you home and took pictures of you every day, should I really profit from that, without you having a say?

Should the real estate board be able to take pictures of your house to include as stock photos of the street?

Should you not be able to take a picture in public if everyone in the area hasn't signed on?

You would never be able to take a picture in a city again unless you zoom in on a leaf.

Should all security cameras point at public areas be removed?

You are in public. Outside of your home. On the sidewalk.

The other question should you be able to profit off of photos of subjects that are not you and didn't have your permission? I would say yes.. as all newspapers, mags and a lot of books would become illegal.

Would you be able to revoke your permission later?

Me and my wife went to the Sistine Chapel a few years back. You can't take photos in there, or in many other notable tourist attractions, without purchasing a license. Thinking about this story, does that also make sense?

I'd like to think that the model/subject should at least be able to assert their moral rights over the use of their image. Like, threaten to prohibit organisations from publishing images containing their likeness.

Wouldn't that be an adequate defence against a tort of this nature?

The Sistine Chapel is not a public place; they have the right to control what people do inside it (subject to the law, of course).

Also, moral rights do not include the right of a subject not to be photographed in public. Moral rights (to the extent they exist in Europe; they don't exist in the U.S.) are about rights the author of a work possesses that transcend economic rights, such as attribution and to be free of derogatory treatment.

In the case of a model/actor, where their image could be suggested to be a form of work, mightn't there be a conflict of interests? That photo would obviously not be as valuable, if the subject was of someone else.

As for the Sistine Chapel thing, that does make sense.

I have a great photo of me and my friends in a circle taking photos of the ceiling in selfie mode waist level

For the fun of course, the quality is poor.

> Should you not be able to take a picture in public if everyone in the area hasn't signed on?

For news gathering and documentary purposes, yes you can. But if you're a private art photographer, no, you should not. It's the same issue as people walking onto sets of films and then suing because the studio used their likeness without a release.

If say, I was in captured accidentally in a promotional video or in a photo in a popular instagram account, I might just sue. Particularly if the instagram account makes $50k/post.

If you're making money with my likeness, why shouldn't I get a cut of it?

> If say, I was in captured accidentally in a promotional video or in a photo in a popular instagram account, I might just sue.

And I’d respond with a 12(b)(6) motion for summary judgment and dismissal and demand costs. I'd also file a motion for sanctions against your attorney for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

In certain states, there are rights to publicity. But these rights limit the use of someone’s name and likeness for commercial or promotional purposes of something other than the subject him/herself. For example, if I took a photo of Dua Lipa and used it to promote my potted meat, she’d have a claim against me. But if I took a photo of her and put it in a newspaper, or put it on Instagram or in my paid magazine with the caption “hey look, it’s Dua Lipa!” — even if it were on the front cover to sell the paper itself — the elements of a rights of publicity claim would not be there; or at the very least, a First Amendment question would arise.

The fact that you might make money by selling a newspaper or access to a website that has photos of someone in it isn’t enough. As we say, that’s incidental.

I'm suggesting jurisprudence, because the law surrounding this issue doesn't seem to be in any way intuitive, and it looks like people appear to have quite different ideas about how transgressions of this nature should be addressed.

I think I'm using the word correctly.

In practice, the law is on the side of the photographer. Perhaps this is not entirely fair, and that argument seems to be a theoretical one.

I think it's valid. Photo was posted on an internet platform. A few people reading HN work with the internet. Who knows who becomes liable for strange legal actions like this one. It informs and then we get to discuss, about the possibilities. The article doesn't mention how she obtained a digital copy of the photo, so she could post it. That's seems to be an important point.

She needs to say that here makeup or clothing choice is her intellectual property and they now owe her money.

clever.

would makeup or clothing choices count as intellectual property in the court of law? any existing examples?

Shot by a paparazzi, so she didn't authorize the paparazzi to take a photo, she was not a "modeling" just walking in an airport

Dua Lipa is a musician.

A model too, apparently. But it's not the most important part of the story, imo.

> It is seeking $150,000 (£108,000) damages and has asked for a jury trial.

...

> Lipa posted the photo to her Instagram account on 7 February 2019, about four days after it was taken.

...

> Integral Images had applied to register copyright for the images, and the request was granted on 20 February 2021 - after Lipa's Instagram post - according to records from the US Copyright Office.

They might have a hard time proving damages. Normally, a plaintiff would ask for statutory damages, which range from $750-$30000 per work infringed, or up to $150000 for willful infringement.

However, statutory damages (and attorney fees) are not available for infringement before registration unless registration occurred within 3 months of the first publication of the work.

It sounds like registration was more like a year after first publication, and infringement was a year before registration.

If that timeline is correct then to get $150k damages the plaintiff will have to show actual damages in that amount. I'm skeptical that they can do so.

I think this is fair. Photography is art, musicians are public figures/fixtures.

Dia lipa is a business that profits from her image. If someone takes a photo in a public space of that image, it’s the photographers property and not the business’s.

> If someone takes a photo in a public space of that image, it’s the photographers property and not the business’s.

I don't see how that follows.

OP here. Exactly the same thought. Feels like a legal fallacy. I'd also wonder if legal rights are subject to change, with an understanding of the context a photo was taken in, or the context it's used.

Seems somewhat unfair to me.

Dua Lipa being a public figure is irrelevant. If you take a photo of me - and I am definitely not a public figure - and I copy or distribute it without your permission, I would be committing a copyright violation.

That might be the law, but that's irrelevant. The parent asserted that it's fair, not that it's lawful.

Check out the is-ought fallacy.

The law is relevant in any conversation about the law.

I tried to point out that the parent's statement regarded the fairness of the behaviour, not what the law says about it.