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'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?