Miley Cyrus Sued for Posting Pic of Herself

[@nameunknown007]

It’s not a surprise that the same person is suing. That person found their new source of definite income!

[@Horizon_06]

@@Rocky_Jonesno, that would be a compliment, more like a parasite

[@User540a]

@@Rocky_Jones we call that being smart. multiple landmark judgements have stated that since celebs and the nature of their jobs make them public figures, it is NOT illegal to click pictures of them without consent. as for suing, its their fault for not knowing copyright law.

[@yeslinsequeira4612]

@@User540a "its your fault i stabbed you"

[@Commenter495]

@@User540a its not the fact that its illegal its the fact that it is just wrong

[@arifahmedkhan9999]

@@User540a Sure buddy.

[@hypernovaD]

They were right when they said "If someone takes a photograph of you, they are actually stealing your soul"

[@ryzekiv7147]

Mickey: “can’t steal whats been sold, huhuh!”

[@hypernovaD]

@@ryzekiv7147 lol.. good point..

[@RustedBuddy5192]

Wasnt it the Native Americans that believed that? I swear I remember hear that somewhere.....

[@hypernovaD]

@@RustedBuddy5192 it was the same in Africa as well, i know for a fact it was the believe when the colonists first came here..

[@chottabeamm]

lmao except now they can possibly steal from ur bank account

[@whatsawhizzerwebnovels4927]

There is something oddly horrifyingly about a photographer being able to take a picture of you without your permission, but you being unable to use it without his.

[@SatoshiAR]

Which is why voyeurism & consent laws exist.

[@edwardblair4096]

So if someone took a picture of you without consent (either explicit or implied) then you could theoretically prevent the photographer from publishing or profiting from the photo, but since they took the picture, they can also prevent you from those things too. Which is why things go much smoother if those types of issues are considered and agreed to before the pictures are taken.

[@TheInfectous]

It's better than the alternative. In the end you're in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. The alternative btw, is never being able to depict a place where there is a person again for fear of someone random deciding to sue you if they happened to be in the image.

[@jasondads9509]

@@TheInfectous wouldn’t he alternative be that the subject of the photo would not be able to get sued the for posting the photo of themselves?

[@DougPoker]

I don't think he took these pictures without their consent. He took photos so good that they wanted to put them on IG? They had to be posed. They likely hired him to do a photo shoot, he takes the snaps and sends them the pictures but they don't realize they need his permission to post them online. Still, these celebs all have social media managers who should be aware of these things and verify sources before posting.

[@connorwebb4270]

She ought to get her tattoo artist to hop in and counter claim, that the photographer posted his work without permission.

[@StewNWT]

That’s actually a brilliant idea

[@seanperrydj]

Brilliant idea !!!

[@ingrid1377]

Ditto

[@TheJerbol]

Except that already happens with tattoo artists nowadays, it's not a good thing lol

[@tymondabrowski12]

But she still owns her face herself too, doesn't she? At least in Europe they can both c*ckblock each other that way (which is why you get all permissions before or just after making the photos). So if the photographer is after a payday and understands the law, he probably never posted it himself anywhere (or removed it when he figured it out) because he doesn't own full copyright either. Unless USA laws differ a lot in that regard.

[@DuckInGameStop]

Note to self: do not let Robert Barbera take a picture of me

[@vrcmf3172]

You can’t stop him

[@akio7994]

Not if you’re in public

[@HedelTorres]

​@@vrcmf3172 true, but if he only plans on stalking and taking photos in public, that works, if i was a celebrity, I'd think twice if he signed up to work on any project I'd be on. Sounds a bit career limiting.

[@vrcmf3172]

@@HedelTorres right. You have every right NOT to hire him. Unfortunately that’s how paparazzi make their money. These are not talented photographers… they’re really parasites. But it’s all legal

[@SlebanDogux]

Too late. Run.

[@hunter_hiebert]

Would’ve loved to see what photo it was but unfortunately, Legal Eagle doesn’t have the copyright 😅

[@brianholloway6205]

Sigh that would be fair use….

[@nexovec]

@@brianholloway6205 That's affirmative defense though

[@brianholloway6205]

I’m sorry what is the point?

[@1sdani]

@@brianholloway6205 Legal Eagle doesn't want to be sued and have to prove that it was fair use. Knowing how litigious the photographer is, it's not worth the risk.

[@brianholloway6205]

@@1sdani lol I can promise you a litigator is not afraid of being sued by a suit that would be frivolous on its face. Lol a litigator afraid of being sued? LololololLOLOLOLOL

[@ducttapeanddreams]

This is a perfect example of why copyright reform is badly needed. The entire system is a mess.

[@handoverthestromboli6715]

Disagree, the photographer did the work. The celebs can afford the licensing lol

[@khoivo7947]

​@@handoverthestromboli6715 the pictures would be much less valuable without celebs as subjects tho?

[@kingeddiam2543]

​@@handoverthestromboli6715yes but he should require the celebrities' permission to take the photo in the first place, he needs to get permission at the least if they need to pay licensing

[@handoverthestromboli6715]

@@kingeddiam2543 so then its not copyright reform. its privacy rights

[@YaBoiButterball]

Constantly I hear people say they want copyright reform. What exactly do you want reformed about copyright?

[@stevefavela9179]

Celebrities should be able to sue paparazzi for stalking

[@daviddroescher]

Stay normal and you don't have that problem. This is one of the heavy cost to getting all that money for doing dirty work.if you can't pay the bill then don't order meal.

[@significantgumption]

@@daviddroescher you’re just wrong, celebrities are still human beings. they have every right to privacy in their own personal time and justifying it by saying they chose it is just deflection from the issue

[@7eddiii]

They can if the paparazzi actually stalk them but I’m pretty sure you have no idea what the legal definition of stalking means

[@7eddiii]

@@significantgumptionwanting privacy in public is an oxymoron kid nobody has a right to privacy in public

[@significantgumption]

@@7eddiii the point is there would be a greater outcry if they also did the same to ordinary people, but some justify it because they think celebrities aren’t the same. also, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not still creepy and obsessive. and please, get off your high horse. there’s no need to act like you know more than everyone else when you’re the one failing to understand what we say

[@emma_nutella58]

“What you do for a living?” “I take pictures of people and sue them when they post them”

[@saimyintmyat9373]

American Be like. 😂

[@Temo990]

@@saimyintmyat9373 Nothing unique to the US. Copyright exists equally in the EU (and probably most other countries in the world). In the EU the person being photographed might have privacy rights and could prohibit the publication. Although celebreties have a lower expectation of privacy while in public. But you still couldn't use the photo without permission of the photographer (or copyright holder).

[@saimyintmyat9373]

@@Temo990 don't know man In SEA regions Asia there is nothing like that. Celebrities and Photographers are always crediting themselves on Social medias when uploading the pics. Yeah I'm referring to Thailand as an example since most actors and actresses there are world wide famous. Have never seen any kind of this in Asians.

[@alfredestrada2729]

🤯

[@alfredestrada2729]

@@Temo990 makes sense actually

[@subzerosanijs]

The most surprising thing is that it's always the same person.

[@Patashu]

Not that surprising once you think about it. What a good hustle lmao

[@mattclarkphotography]

A photographer who has realized that shares and likes don't equal pay...ever. Ask any professional photographer how many bills get paid with shares and likes.

[@SailingOnACrow]

Good avertising for his photography skills if celebrities keep liking them so much to share on their own social media.

[@fakjbf3129]

Celebrities probably post photos they don’t own the copyright to all the time from a variety of photographers, Barbera is just the one who sues them for doing so.

[@drebk]

@@fakjbf3129 most likely answer

[@SilverDuler]

I hate paparazzi and think these laws should be changed to reflect how the majority feel

[@Jehty_]

Taking pictures of people without their consent should just be banned.

[@RHCole]

@jehty Juat gonna throw any and all surveillance footage from private businesses and residences out the window in a court of law, are we?

[@Jehty_]

@@RHCole no, we put up signs that state: "You are filmed". If you didn't leave you gave consent.

[@RHCole]

@@Jehty_ I didn't see the sign 🤷🏻‍♂️ Move to throw the evidence out of court.

[@RHCole]

@@Jehty_ You cannot be expected to not be seen in public. You are in public. There is a reasonable expectation that you will be witnessed existing, and since others have the right to film things in public as well, such a law would also make photos and video IN GENERAL a legal grey area making such a law UNENFORCABLE.

[@fabiofanf3e813]

copyright law is so unbeliviably broken that at this point, they should just restart from scratch

[@tfx9223]

Is this that broken? They took the photo, they hold the copyright. And as long as it was taken legally, everyone else has to ask to use it. It is the most basic principle of copyright.

[@RabblesTheBinx]

​​@@tfx9223 I would argue that, at very least, there should be some kind of inherent, albeit limited, license for the subject of the photo to be able to show it off. Especially in this kind of situation, where the subject didn't consent to having the photo taken. There isn't, of course, but in my personal opinion, there should be.

[@davidshatto7604]

@@RabblesTheBinxmaybe some sort of law where posting it unsponsored on social media or otherwise not making money on the photo is legal? That’s the cleanest solution I could think of and even that would probably make the law pretty complicated in certain situations

[@reaganeidemiller7132]

@@tfx9223 I own my likeness, anybody saying otherwise can get bent honestly would not be surprised if that photographer found an unfortunate accident someday.

[@GabrielMisfire]

@davidshatto7604 One could argue ANYTHING a celebrity posts on social media that is open to public viewing constitutes commercial/promotional content for their ‘brand’/art. If you have a private profile for acquaintances only, then it could be judged on a case-to-case basis - say you’re Miley Cyrus and you post a photo to a private whatever inviting your close circle to support X product/company with you because of whatever reason, with reasonable expectation of that having considerable consequences considering the people potentially involved - then should that come to light, it would probably be a more nuanced legal case.

[@RonaiHenrik]

"So what's your job" "I'm a photographer as a side-gig"

[@theoneandonlyme8]

“But sueing is my main job”

[@just_a_random_lonely_man]

​@@theoneandonlyme8finally, it take 8 month to complete the sentences. I xan rest now

[@claytonharris9262]

Whenever I hear about this kind of lawsuit, I always remember the monkey named Naruto that stole a camera and took a photo of himself that got published which sparked a lawsuit about who owned the copyright.

[@princesssweepzzt5502]

Obviously the Monkey 🐒

[@taylorlibby7642]

As I recall there were a couple of competing animal rights organizations that wanted the monkey to be assigned the copyright and for their particular organization to be named his guardian to "manage" the copyright for him.🙄

[@jorgelotr3752]

The monkey didn't steal the camera; the camera was left there on purpose so that the monkeys took photos by accident by playingaround with it.

[@bored_person]

@@taylorlibby7642 bunch of virtue signaling hypocrites. If they truly cared about animal rights they wouldn't focus on something so petty that doesn't affect the animals well-being in any way.

[@taylorlibby7642]

@ShepherdSaint Well, hypocrisy and double-dealing does define PETA pretty comprehensively.

[@canny_linguist]

"Let me take a photo." "Yeah sure." "Aaaand... I'll see you in court."

[@jam2727]

@classic max if a human is a big part of that property, they should have a say if they didn't sign a contract saying otherwise.

[@poppers7317]

@classic max a model most likely got paid.

[@latenerd2441]

@classic max Still you have no right to use the photo for comercial purposes if you didnt get that permisson from the subject. He was just salty they didnt let him sell those photos. You might have the copyright but you have income. At least thats how it works in UK

[@latenerd2441]

@classic max NO you need consent as photographer to sell photo's of someones likeness unless it was taken on like a public street a paparazzi. If they posed on red carpet for example or at entrence to a gala or some other shit then you as photographer must either get permission or provide them with royalties.

[@Gugnar678]

You clearly dont understand the point of this video or the law.

[@Phi1618033]

This photographer may have the law on his side, but doesn't mean he's not an a**hole.

[@daviddroescher]

He's the one with a hole as a pronoun, but the rich... is the one who stole from the commoner. Theft of services could have been add , kind of nice of him not to make an example of the rich as though was a DA throwing books.

[@pinballrobbie]

Its his living and they posed for the photos and he would have got permission to use them for profit. If the subject was to sell the photos and profit from them they would be competing with the cameraman.

[@significantgumption]

@@pinballrobbie the profession is a bad one, and let’s be fair, a celebrity photographer outside of professional settings isn’t necessary at all

[@jal051]

He has zero professional courtesy. The surprise in all of this is how they keep hiring him. Normally they would learn fast not to work with him.

[@alexandram1301]

He sounds like a real treat of a human

[@ObjectsInMotion]

Better than the subjects of his photos at least! I'd rather spend time with a real artist than a corporate doll.

[@mefovarka]

@@ObjectsInMotionbetter in what regard? being a borderline scammer?

[@noxythegreat]

​@@ObjectsInMotionactually he acts just like a corporate doll so idk what you're getting at here fam

[@ObjectsInMotion]

@@mefovarka If suing rich people for stealing from artists is a scam, then absolutely I'm on the side of the "scammer"

[@Seth9809]

How did they did the photo and why did they like it enough to post it?

[@jcccccccccccccccc]

The one with Lebron where he got sued for copyright infringement and he made a counter lawsuit worth 1m making the photographer bankrupt 😂😂

[@kenlompart9905]

Nice!

[@zippyparakeet1074]

Deserved. Bro was trying to be all clever.

[@xylianyx]

Good for him! This is total BS!

[@frog212whyd4]

What was the counter lawsuit suing for?

[@jcccccccccccccccc]

@@frog212whyd4 He argued that it was the photographer who illegally used the images on his own website as a way of promoting his photo agency

[@poisonpawn6452]

"He's a sewer, he sues people." Gotta love homonyms.

[@natep6729]

Heteronyms are way better

[@natep6729]

@@poisonpawn6452 Was trying to make a joke. I clearly failed

[@poisonpawn6452]

@@natep6729 no my bad. I made a bad association because of something that happened to my wife. Sorry. Your humor is valid.

[@Duckyman-mt1xe]

Can you just do it the other way around😂

[@knuckle12356]

They don't like being called dat no more.

[@thewestfire9729]

Poses as a photographer, lives as a scam artist.

[@ellejendario97]

So... Basically a paparazzo

[@thewestfire9729]

@@ellejendario97 uh huh

[@MadScientist267]

You spelled "piece of shit" wrong

[@thewestfire9729]

@@MadScientist267 two sides, same coin.

[@MMDVAWARENESS]

​​@@MadScientist267 he's scamming celebrities, he's not the real piece of shit

[@rockyblacksmith]

I hope the guy gets known far and wide for this. "This is the guy that sues you if you post the pictures he took of you, steer clear of him".

[@Figgy20000]

You can't stop him. All the photos this guy takes are in public settings which are open to first amendment freedoms. Blame Americas assbackwards constitution for all the shit you have to put up with on a daily basis.

[@Sonofsun.]

everyone should do that to protect their right

[@rockyblacksmith]

@@Sonofsun. If someone gets to publish a photo of you without your permission, then you should get to repost it without their permission too. If it's only one of the two, then one side is getting exploited. So either go with neither, or both.

[@sinewave1k735]

You ppl be wrong. Going to events benefits them for media exposure. Those photos on the carpet are taken by pros. It's their work, completely ethical, and with consent. That's why it's protected. They would have saw this photographers photos at these events and such, then decided they liked it enough to post it.

[@judas1523]

it’s not like they can choose to do that…. he follows celebrities around. he comes to them. it’s not the other way around…

[@JonDC70]

It's not that the celebrities don't know copyright law, even though they don't, it's whoever does their posting on Instagram that doesn't know copyright law.

[@angusmacfrankenstein7227]

Funny thing, I do a bit of photography, and I would’ve never thought of this!

[@jamessloven2204]

Plot twist, it's the same guy running all their Instagrams! He is in league with the photographer to scam the celebrities. Not actually, but it would be a good Plot twist.

[@dorkydragon5055]

That or the lawsuit settlement is just viewed as the really" expensive" price tag of the photos cause laws with only fines as a consequence only gate keep the poor, eh got no race in this horse

[@m0L3ify]

@@jamessloven2204 Those texts and emails would be juicy discovery to read. Because you know they'd be documenting their crimes. 😂

[@jonathanperry8331]

Well where are their agents? If someone's supposed to read those contracts and make sure stuff like this doesn't happen. Also if it was taken in public without their consent how could they copy write it? Why would you hire a photographer to make photos of you that you can't use? This literally makes no sense.

[@ChiRonChiaren]

I heard in my copyright law class that some celebrities actively try to “preempt” photos taken by paparazzi by posting them on their own socials. This is definitely an emerging front and it’ll be interesting to see how cases go even in the next few years or so.

[@voluntarism335]

Copyright is illegitimate

[@hautehussey]

You mean by posting their own photos of a particular thing. Like a celeb getting ahead of them by posting photos of their pregnant belly first, or the first pics of their new baby.

[@Shade01982]

@@voluntarism335 No, it really isn't. Copyright is what gives content creators the rights and ownership to their own content, which is really important for most creators to protect their content. The problem here is that the underlying system it being abused and applied to the wrong stuff.

[@voluntarism335]

@@Shade01982 You do not own ideas, and what are you going to do when I post photos that you claim you own? Are you going to put a gun to my head? You violent thug

[@PerennialWheat]

@@Shade01982 Copyright is heavily abused and exploited a lot to take money from people, intellectual property in a whole is abused and exploited A LOT. Patents are used to create monopolies most of the time which kills competition thus killing innovation. it's extremely flawed.

[@anonymouscommentator]

the photographer must be a really nice person. I bet they have a lot of friends!

[@maxb148]

I bet you haven't actually met a photographer and know how much it costs them and if you aren't paying for the photos that's their work and livelihood going down the drain.

[@anonymouscommentator]

@@maxb148 imagine defending a scummy paparazzi 😂

[@gmo8381]

@@maxb148well you kinda are the only reason there making money considering your the one being photographed so without the celebrity he would make no money….

[@juanferrer5924]

@@gmo8381and a lot of those shots don’t exactly look like they gave permission either

[@L-mo]

@@gmo8381 without an audience celebrities would have no money. I can’t understand why people don’t realise that this is someone’s job and they need to get paid for it. How would you feel if someone took your professional creations and passed them off as their own?

[@angryyogbuscus1578]

I'm starting to think the photographer is planning on subjects doing this.

[@spvillano]

Lousy business model in repeat business is desired.

[@sirdeadlock]

Keep receipts. When chatting with a content creator and they so much as mildly imply that it would be okay to use their work; screenshot it and put that evidence somewhere safe.

[@RLplusabunchofdumbnumbers]

Bluntly, I would love for some corporation to violate the copyrights on my photos. The penalties on a registed copyright allow for up to a $150k fine - you know how many headshot sessions and prints (even my limited edition ones) I need to sell to make $150k? Steal my work! I dare anyone! :D

[@VineFynn]

@@sirdeadlock just fyi, a speaker implies, only an audience infers. :)

[@sirdeadlock]

@@VineFynn I did not know that; thank you!

[@georgedunn320]

"The law is a ass" -- Shakespeare

[@Treblaine]

That's actually Charles Dickens, not Shakespeare. Shakespeare was not at all anti-establishment.

[@georgedunn320]

@@Treblaine I stand corrected. Of course, the quote of an author doesn't necessarily represent his own sentiments, but those of his characters. In this case, Bumble, I think. There's always a bit of a dilemma as to whether a witticism should be attributed to the author who wrote it or to the fictional party who delivered it. I've seen it go both ways, influenced, probably, by how famous the character is. For example, Sherlock Holmes is usually quoted directly, but where the author's name is more recognizable that those of his characters, that usually commands the attribution. You're right, of course; Shakespeare was pro-ruling class, particularly during the patronage of James I, when he produced six plays.

[@lonedruid710]

*an

[@Treblaine]

@@georgedunn320 you can tell which characters the author approves of. Other than Steven King I don't think authors tend to insert any versions of themselves into the story.

[@EebstertheGreat]

@@lonedruid710 It's "a" in the novel. It's supposed to represent a dialect where people don't say "an," I guess. It's from _Oliver Twist._ “It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it," urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room. That is no excuse," returned Mr. Brownlow. "You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction." If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience - by experience.”

[@nelly9484]

I hope people follow him around and take photos all day.

[@fakirpoo]

Even if they do, not many people will care. He's not a celebrity, there's no interest in photographs that he's in.

[@mykellederickpalad7883]

I'm pretty sure he ain't dumb enough to ever post those photos to his instagram though

[@BambinaSaldana]

Wouldn't this be considered stalking or harassment?

[@expensivetacos1899]

@@BambinaSaldana you’d think the same for celebrities

[@louisrobitaille5810]

@@BambinaSaldana Only if it's the same person. If a thousand different people take a picture of you in public, it's gonna be annoying, but it's not harrassment. If one person takes a thousand picture of you in public, it's gonna be annoying, but it's still not harrassment. If a person takes a thousand picture of you whilst getting in your way, now that's harrassment. And taking pictures of you when you're in your home falls under voyeurism law I think 🤔.

[@felixknoll781]

That's why I love living in Germany! Over here if you're in the picture (primarily) it is yours to choose what, and who's allowed to do something with it.

[@sciencewithfun2052]

Finally a country with decent copyright laws, at least to an extent

[@jal051]

@@sciencewithfun2052 It's not really copyright law. The copyright still belongs to the photographer. It's a personal privacy law.

[@mrnowak2835]

This is why you hire your own paparazzi photographer that lets you use their photos without lawsuits involved.

[@grimsage5809]

True + honestly candid shots can be so well done and authentic comparatively.

[@highrider9168]

So don't steal someone's photo, yeah I agree as a photographer. If I take the picture of you. I own it. Don't steal it.

[@aoifa_silverDragon]

@@highrider9168 Question: I hire you for a photoshoot... I pay you to do a job, can't i use those picture without explicitly get your consent? or pay you a copyright fee?

[@Taschip]

​​@@highrider9168Nobody will ever pose in your photos again if you're just gonna sue them 😂

[@Avenger2099]

​@aoifa_silverDragon Would depend on the contract. You hire someone for a photoshoot, said photoshoot is supposed to be posted to a specific website or is being made into an art piece or whatever? You absolutely wouldn't have the right to post it to Instagram.

[@ComboSmooth]

Still boggles my mind how any random can take your picture and then sell it, but you yourself get nothing from it. Not even the right to use the picture on social media.

[@shadowfox009x]

In Germany we have privacy protection laws preventing that. At least for us normal people. It's slightly different for celebrities.

[@TravisTerrell]

I think it's fair to share royalties or some "giving credit" arrangement, but since a photograph is a creative work, it seems problematic to make the subject the owner. (Though there's sooo much copyright and patent law I'd want to fix before considering this little one, haha.)

[@ColdNorth0628]

@@Metrion77 that is so convoluted and stupid

[@cityuser]

@@Metrion77 Lol no

[@Bad_Wolf_Media]

If you are in public, you don't have an expectation of privacy. Period. It becomes even less of a privacy issue when you are a celebrity out in public. This isn't paparazzi stuff where he's getting shots over walls or behind curtains. When you're out on the street, you are fair game. That's the way the law works.

[@ZeckeGegenRechts]

As a German that horrifies me. How can a stranger, just take pictures without your consent, and you don’t own the right, to your own pictures??? That’s horrible!!

[@ironhidex7554]

Fr and then people just think its okay??? As an american this makes me want to live in a concrete bunker or somethin 😂

[@Tombraidertussi]

So glad to live in germany right now 😂

[@ZeckeGegenRechts]

@@ironhidex7554 it’s crazy, how is that okay for normal people living in the U.S.? Can you even take pictures of strangers children?

[@danilicious2308]

Bruh, I can take pictures of you if you're in a public place. I may not be allowed to publish them without consent or anything, but there's nothing against taking public pictures for your own use.

[@ironhidex7554]

@emmiyener yea,so long as its in public its legal,very creepy

[@i_garfed_on_the_carpet]

We live in a world where people can take as many photos of you as they want but if you use those photos you’re in the wrong

[@_FirstLast_]

Imagine being so self absorbed as to be daily obsessed with putting your best photogenic outfit/makeup/style/self in the public space then being outraged someone profited off the art you gave away for free. You'd be in the wrong for using almost anything that doesn't belong to you without permission from the owner...how is this any different? Every single one of these celebrities made the conscious effort to present said image to the public when they left their private residence (in _exactly_ the same way non-celebrities do every single day). They're just pissy that someone found a way to make more off their "artful presentation" than they did. Next thing you'll tell me is women who wear clothing exposing 90-100% of their breasts in public aren't responsible for the people that stare at their tits. People are just dumber by the day i swear. They'd wear a dress made of raw hamburger meat and try to pet a tiger that hasn't eaten in 4 days, then have the audacity to claim there's "something wrong with that tiger" when it mauls them.

[@i_garfed_on_the_carpet]

@@_FirstLast_ the idea that someone cant use a picture of themselves is ridiculous mate

[@absoutezeo2126]

​@@i_garfed_on_the_carpet"Ridiculous" doesn't hold up in court, I'm afraid. And in any case, a photo is the photographer's property. They purchased the film or digital hardware that is containing it. Regardless of who or what is depicted in the photo, it doesn't change the owner.

[@i_garfed_on_the_carpet]

@@absoutezeo2126 i don’t care about the legality I’m just saying it’s ridiculous

[@Lovelybby24]

The fact he is non concentually taking photos and then suing is crazy

[@frozenyogurth]

We don't know if it was non consentual tho. We know they were taken, and they seem like they are posed, which makes me think he was hired to take them but those particular pictures weren't purchased by the celebrities/ it ws not in the contrac that they could use them in the way they used them.

[@tonybezanson9625]

There is no consent needed if it's in a public area. Anything you can see in public, you can photograph. It's protected under the 1st amendment

[@Terratetradon]

@@tonybezanson9625 that's creept

[@ClancyoftheOverflow]

@@Terratetradon Creepier than getting arrested for taking photographs _including humans_ in a public space? -- What would be the laws/rules/process for determining consent? What about crowds? What about _cars?_ If you can't show a person in public why should you be able to show their private property in public? If you can't show that then you probably shouldn't be allowed to show private property visible _from_ a public space so how can you really publish _anything?_ Even a picture of space through a telescope _(to avoid accidentally including aircraft)_ would likely still be _through_ government airspace and god forbid it's a section of sky containing any satellites or even distant government owned spacecraft but in a world w/ such insane copyright laws they'd probably have to respect astronomers "ownership of discovery" so even _invisible_ cosmic structures identified by _radio_ telescopy may require "image" reproduction protections...

[@georgelupascu5488]

Tell people you're an idiot, without telling them you're an idiot.

[@uwu-hm9vs]

So paparazzi are stalking celebrities all the time but they can't even post a picture Make it make sense

[@orphious885]

I don't agree on an ethical level, but the reason is because the photographer taking the picture is the one "doing the work". If someone else claims the benefits for someone's work, that's theft.

[@ghostflame9211]

@@SimuLord i never understood why it became illegal (within reason; cant just hurt people with no reason obviously). no one respects boundaries anymore. i distinctly remember the time paparazzi were surrounding katy perry's car to the point where she couldnt drive. felt like it shouldve been completely in her right to run them over for impeding traffic.

[@casusbelli9225]

@@SimuLord Just do the second amendment thing to them.

[@JKiler1]

They are free to post pictures of themselves. Just not pictures they don't own. Why is this hard to understand?

[@larsrademakers6070]

Actors dont own the movies they are the star in, same logic applied to pictures

[@ravishankerupadhyay5691]

Now you know why Tobey Maguire react to paparazzi the way he does

[@hotdogshake4764]

i’d do the same tbh

[@SeverityOne]

In Europe, definitely the Netherlands, there is an exception to copyright law. In general, nobody can publish your portrait without your permission. And this can include cartoons. There are always exceptions and considerations, but the celebrity would be able to sue the photographer.

[@_FirstLast_]

Satire, parody, and general free speech are pretty protected in the US. Sorry to hear you guys aren't missing what you never had.

[@SeverityOne]

@@_FirstLast_ Yeah, thanks for the non-sequitur. The point is that nobody can go and earn money off your own image. If you work hard to become famous. a photographer has to pay _you_ for your image, instead of the other way around. In general, Europe is freer than the USA because it doesn't focus on unrestricted freedom of expression. If you check the ranking of Freedom House, you'll see that the USA score 83/100, whereas most of Europe scores between 90/100 and 100/100. And in Europe, the government protects your freedom, whereas in the USA you're out of luck if you're a minority of some sort: you're at the mercy of the crowd. You _did_ look this up before making your remark, right?

[@TheRenegade...]

​@@SeverityOneIf even cartoons are protected, that suggests that political cartoons and other satire depicting real political figures are effectively illegal

[@SeverityOne]

@@TheRenegade... They're not illegal. I looked up the case and I could share the link, but it's in Dutch (google ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2005:AS4748 and use a translator). It was an advertising campaign for Mother's Day, which used a drawn caricature of the then Prime Minister. They were using his image because he was famous, and were using it commercially. In that case, different considerations count than when it's about politics.

[@somerandomguy4240]

@@_FirstLast_ Free speech is protected in the US? Lmao what a joke.

[@GiuseppeGaetanoSabatelli]

The impressive part is that he's such a good photographer that each of these celebs can't help but post his photo. 😂

[@JokerInk-CustomBuilds]

maybe he is the one sending them the pictures making them think it is for their use... and when they share it on their page he has them by the balls in court... Tourist scammers used to do this when travelling abroad; They took a picture and handed it to you to see... and then refused to take it back demanding money since you took it....

[@Milesco]

I don't think it's that he's a good photographer; I think it's simply that the celebrities are so self-centered and self-absorbed that when they come across a photo of themselves, they can't help posting it onto their Instagram accounts.

[@timetraveler0002]

also celebrities are dumb

[@hautehussey]

Don’t forget the part where these celebs are often making millions and millions of dollars from their Instagram accounts. And the content of those accounts is photography!

[@Milesco]

@@hautehussey They're not making millions of dollars from their Instagram accounts. They make millions of dollars in other ways, but not from IG. Yes, it's part of their overall public relations program, like appearing on talk shows, etc., but it doesn't directly bring in any money.

[@montecorbit8280]

I'd make sure you get a restraining order against him forever taking my picture again....

[@Interdiffusion]

Acting within the law is not grounds for a restraining order.

[@montecorbit8280]

@@Interdiffusion Some places the paparazzi are illegal....

[@claytonberg721]

Anyone can take your picture when you are out in public. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[@x_.mizuki._x3231]

​@@claytonberg721Not taking photos of someone is the bare minimum, only in America you can take a photo of someone, post it, and get away with it

[@dynoob]

​@@claytonberg721these unreasonable laws are only there in the USA, land of the greedy corporations backed by the corrupt government. Don't act as this would be normal, it's just stupid.

[@thisishowitends]

Moral of the story: Don't work with Robert Barbera

[@afuturehobo]

I mean, yeah? But the bigger picture is not to infringe on someone's copyright. That's like saying dont hang out with that guy because he reports you for stealing his shit.

[@patrickmccurry1563]

The moral is don't freaking steal.

[@purplewine7362]

@@afuturehobo a paparazzi's copyrights deserve to be infringed

[@afuturehobo]

@@purplewine7362 we can all agree on the scummyness of paparazzi, but infringing their copyright is not a solution, that much is very clear. This guy would probably be broke if the celebrities didn't use his pictures, so that he can sue them and win. The solution is to not use anyone's untransformed copyrighted material, unless you have license to use it.

[@purplewine7362]

@@afuturehobo if you take somebody's photo without their consent, you shouldn't deserve the sole right to that photo

[@Animeaniac215]

That photographer is speedrunning his career.

[@JacobthePoshPotato]

Sounds like the photographer version of a patent troll.

[@TheRazorTongue]

Kinda.

[@ptonpc]

In general terms, you do not need the consent of someone to take a photograph of them if you & them are in a public place. However you will own the copyright. (There are exceptions) This is why you can take a photo of yourself with a celebrity and not get sued for putting it on your social media account. If they hired him, then they should have read the model release form or contract. Most standard ones give the photographer, not the subject, the copyright. This is not the fault of the photographer, this is the fault of the celeb or the social media manager who posted the pictures without permission.

[@solosynapse]

​@@ptonpcI feel that non-commercial use should result in a slap on the wrist. I also get the feeling that Barbera isn't asking them to take it down or get permission first, and is instead using these lawsuits as a way to get paid twice for the same photo. I hope he saves the money, because nobody is going to trust him enough to hire him after this. He's going to have to resort to being paparazzi before long.

[@ptonpc]

@@solosynapse If celebs are posting them on their public facing account, it is for commercial use. They don't do things for free. The very least they could have done is ask permission.

[@BrunaSilva-hs9sv]

The worse part is that those pictures were probably posted social media management teams or interns, meaning this little stunt of Barbara's mostly cost someone their job.

[@slavicprincess]

Well maybe the social media management should educate themselves on basic copyright law. Like imagine managing the social media accounts of celebrities and not even knowing what copyright is 😂

[@DevKulkarni]

Nope if it was a company they already know. Even teams sitting offshore are trained to get the copyright or ensure fair use test before posting.

[@chaalbaaz429]

Lmao then they need to get better at their job.

[@TychoKingdom]

Or maybe is a publicity stunt. Now all the papers can say " this celebrity SuEd by photographer"

[@seanyong3566]

This isn't a "stunt". He owns them

[@benjaminressler7745]

We need to take pictures of this man everywhere he goes

[@numeristatech]

But you will need his permission to publish any image of him in certain countries/jurisdictions…

[@seandobbins2231]

@@numeristatech and in those certain countries he wouldn't be able to sue on the grounds he has multiple times already since permission is necessary when taking a photo of a single person.

[@benjaminressler7745]

@@numeristatech i dont care about publishing just i feel paparazzi should have thier privacy invaded at all times

[@jamesduncan6729]

Nah. Y'all are the ones who worship celebrities, as far as I'm concerned, when he takes these photos he's just doing his job. He's giving you a digital alter upon which you can pray to and worship at, seeing as how most people seem to think these celebrities are Gods.

[@user-lg5xu6id5j]

@@jamesduncan6729 not a honest job stalking people. These celebs aren't God's they are just rich people who shouldn't be harassed

[@zohrakey9023]

In France we have something called "droit à l'image", basically no one can own an image of you, sell it or publish it without your consent. It would truly be a uno reverse card against this con artist of a woman.

[@GabrielMisfire]

Surely there must be a provision for public figures/celebrities/journalistic usage of any shape or form? Either that, or nobody could do any form of reportage in public spaces - which then means that I have broken French law for years, back when I worked events in Paris lmao

[@milou66]

This reminds me of that great line from Carrie Fisher when she said every time she looked in the mirror she had to send George Lucas a cheque.

[@kenlompart9905]

That's a good one,

[@Biblioholic1993]

That's probably why Mark and Carrie both let themselves get ah, broader after they did Star Wars, so that they could use their dang face without copywrite infringement and the "Luke and Leah" likenesses.

[@RicardoSantos-oz3uj]

That guy should be in a blacklist. So every celebrity knows to tell their security to kick him out.

[@highrider9168]

Hes taking them in public 😂😂😂 Also, it's 100% legal and rightfully so. Whoever created it, owns it. If you hire me to take your photos, Then ask for "samples" and then keep them and refuse to pay for the package you can't use them...and skimp me. If you use them without paying for them, You get sued.

[@natibinyam9264]

The thing is that he owns those pics and can do what he wants with them and because the celebs were at a photo shoot it was with consent

[@eeeeeeee543]

He’s done nothing wrong - the celebrities have broken the law

[@MrAkaidu]

@@eeeeeeee543 He takes pictures of people without their consent like a creepy voyeur.

[@dubyah7308]

@@eeeeeeee543 You're pond scum if you think legality = morality.

[@michaelroy1631]

And this is why those A-list celebrities should have social media managers who understand basic copyright law and make sure everything that gets posted is legit.

[@MushookieMan]

dum dum hire dum dum

[@GhostStealth590]

Other way around. Sign a rights form securing shared copyright and licenses from the photographer. This is what I do around the clock for my portfolio, I have an entire portfolio clause to ensure whatever work I work on can be put in my portfolio.

[@Sephiroth144]

Well, who SHOULD understand basic copyright law...

[@LycanWitch]

They do. Do you really thin Miley Cyrus posts to her public instagram or other social media? Instead they have people to do it for them.

[@DeathnoteBB]

@I Bruh. Pushing a button is the literal last step in taking a photo. And even then, you take hundreds, and then there’s post-production

[@RapinatorOhYeah]

That photographer really found an infinite money glitch

[@973yanou]

Thats why Kim kardashian hired her own paparazzi, She can post What She wants She pays them

[@nikishort1501]

Lots of private photography companies do this. So if you're getting a make over, maternity or cake smash shoot etc always check the fine print

[@badbiker666]

I used to run a photography business. I wasn't a paparazzi, I did weddings, families, glamour shots, etc. But every photo I took, I owned, even if the subjects paid me to take them. Retaining control over the images that they take is the only way a photographer can make a living.

[@davidfaustino4476]

​@@badbiker666except for like.. the literal fee you charge for doing the job..

[@loverlyredhead]

​@@badbiker666funny. My wedding photog made such a good living off her job she paid for her master's degree with it, and then chose to continue her business rather than use her degree. She gave us rights to use our photos however we want and only retained her rights to use them for her portfolio and website.

[@chunshine]

I was so surprised when my best friend told me that her photographer owned the rights to HER wedding photographs. I thought that was so deluded.

[@badbiker666]

@@loverlyredhead I did the same thing, giving my wedding clients license to use their images in any way they pleased. But I retained the legal rights to the photos. Of course, never made another dime from them, except when a client referred me to a friend and I got more business. That's how I made 90% of my money - weddings and graduation photos.

[@mattjohnsen2240]

The Top Gear guys did a challenge like this to see who could get the most pictures of them taken in a day and they couldn't show any of them in the end cuz the photographers wanted like 100 Grand each for photos of themselves

[@zacheryredden5417]

Whole lot of folks in here are both art critics and copyright law experts. I’m impressed!

[@SpaceBearEngineer]

What "expertise" is required to determine that a law allowing someone to take a picture of someone else *without their permission* and makes *the photograph subject's IMAGE the property of the stalker* is insane and broken? I don't think you need a law degree to see when the LAW is WRONG, just a sense of a morality.

[@absoutezeo2126]

​@@SpaceBearEngineerThere's a reason why law school exists. You clearly have no understanding of the law and are engaging in knee-jerk reactionary behavior based on pre-determined ideals. The fact that you call this person a stalker with zero evidence is also rather telling. Go read a book.

[@CrashBashL]

"I wonder why nobody hires me to take their pictures...."

[@MawileMage]

I was going to say, as much as he may have the right, this seems like an easy way to ensure no one will ever want this guy to take their photos again. XD

[@seanbirtwistle649]

Its the other way around. If they're that good they keep getting taken from him then yes I'd hire him. He's not going to take you to court for a shoot you paid for lol

[@tinkerer3399]

This guy is a professional paparazzo. Dude above me is correct, if people are using paparazzo photographs on their official media outlets that normally means that the person is extremely skilled. The guy already has people not wanting him to take their picture on account of being paparazzo, he has no risk from doing this and all the reward in the world.

[@hautehussey]

He wasn’t hired. People are misunderstanding this case completely I think.

[@lopoa126]

How clueless are you?

[@dashingdahlias8873]

Thank you Disney and Sonny Bono for helping to deliver us to the worst timeline

[@happykiller14]

Thank you. I don't normally go right, but I for the love of goodness hope that Josh Hawleys Copyright Restoration Clause Act takes effect

[@DrLemon1]

Perfect example of how absolutely stupid our laws can be

[@moosepasshippie]

This law stems from a group of people that sued a photographer, taking a picture of a monkey. They said the monkey owned a picture. It was some animal rights activist group.

[@simoneidson21]

Copyright is such a stupid concept in general

[@ballstothewall38]

Our laws have been backwards since the 1800's

[@iammrksmom7896]

​@@simoneidson21Yeah! It's so dumb that artists and photographers get paid for their work!

[@x3woots]

​@@iammrksmom7896its so cool how someone without consent could photograph you and they could use it however they want with you being unable to do the same

[@mardy3732]

Copyright is the hottest mess in the entire justice system.

[@MisterRorschach90]

Reminds me of my first year in college. I turned in my final project in my literature class. I had the same topic I wrote about earlier in the year. I used some of the same lines from the first paper and when I got a 0 percent for plagiarism i was confused. I knew that it was impossible for me to have plagiarized. I asked him to check the database in front of me. He pulled up what I copied and then I asked him to read the name. He laughed because it was my name. Then he wrote a 100 on my paper and sent me on my way.

[@spicyramen01739]

isn’t that still considered plagiarism in some cases?

[@MisterRorschach90]

@@spicyramen01739 no because we were allowed to use the same topic from earlier in the class if we wanted. I had already done tons of research so I just decided to reuse it.

[@bonelesswatermelon420]

In our university, that's still known as 'self-plagiarism.' While it's great that you were allowed to do it in this case, I would recommend taking the safer approach of always citing sources, even if they're your own. Many formal publications are very strict about self-plagiarism so just a heads up on that.

[@alluo1009]

Self plagiarism is a big offence for most research papers. You can’t just recycle texts you’ve written in one document onto another separate document, citations is needed for all referenced text regardless of author. This is taught literally first year of any college/university program.

[@vrcmf3172]

This isn’t even close to the same thing. Being the SUBJECT of a photo doesn’t mean you own it. Imagine if the police owned videos that citizens took of cops during a arrest that had then doing something illegal. Again your case YOU wrote the paper. Imagine writing a paper about a celebrity then finding out you got sued OR got a 0 on paper for plagiarism because they say they are the subject of YOUR paper. That’s RIDICULOUS LOL

[@nater1328]

They should simply start banning this particular opportunist from photographing official events, and file individual restraining orders against him.

[@Seth9809]

But then whey would be able to steal his photos.

[@Ardeleus]

​@@Seth9809how do you steal nonexistent photos

[@PtylerBeats]

I had to explain this to my wife when we got wedding photos done lol I read every contract, and in it was a list of things we couldn’t do with the photos, and she was confused why if they were our photos. And I had to explain that they aren’t OURS, we are just the subject. The photos belong to the photographer

[@Bleeepbloooblaaap]

Are y'all in a sexless marriage?

[@ericalawson631]

that's kind of silly of you to EMPLOY someone to take your pictures without insisting on holding the copyright

[@cggc9510]

I've always wondered about this. If you pay for a painted portrait, you own the painting. If you pay for a photo, why don't you own the photo?

[@ruonaazigbo904]

@@cggc9510 really

[@mrknarf4438]

@@cggc9510 well, you own the painting as a physical object as you've bought it, but it's always been painted by the painter, so the "intellectual property" belongs to them. If they were to digitalise it and sell prints of it, you wouldn't own those or be able to claim a cut, it's the artist's work. Same as, if you were to buy a physical print of a picture, that's your, but not the digital picture itself.

[@Enonymouse_]

having been a camera toting individual, the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Some photographers would rather just be credited for their work instead of going to the trouble of having to hire legal representation and chase people down for IP violations.

[@caidalee1994]

He knows what he’s doing.

[@prussiaball1871]

Well yes, that's why he hasn't been able to make much money since

[@douglei4413]

I wouldn't hire him for anything

[@danart941]

​@@douglei4413 if u hire him then you can use the photos cuz they would be doing it for u, but in this case its just a photographer who took photos of them, he was never hired

[@gennix404]

All I'm hearing is "I'm gonna sue you if you work with me" that dude ain't gonna be in business long lmao😂

[@RoyalReyna]

Thr problem is they're not working together. There's nothing these celebrities can do to prevent their picture from being taken outside of staying inside all the time or wearing a disguise/being shielded by other people 24/7. When you go in public, people can take your picture without your consent, celebrity or not, paparazzi or not, unless it's for a commercial purpose. Selling these photos and making money off of them doesn't count as a commercial purpose. So the celebs are not choosing to have him take their picture, they only choice they have is what they want thr picture to look like, as in do they want to make a face or flip off the camera or actually try to take a good picture

[@Daiwie44]

​@@RoyalReynaLol, no they can't profit from them. You can't use a photographer's photo of you, but he can't use his photo of you either. Both parties need consent

[@jimm60701]

​​@@Daiwie44that's not true. If you're not in a position where you would expect privacy, then you can be the focus on someone photo and, outside of defamatory use, they can use that photo however they please without ever giving you a penny. This is literally the business model of tabloid media.

[@RoyalReyna]

@Daiwie44 not really. You can go outside and take videos and put them on YT and make money without waivers or consent bc they're in a public space. Same way the newspaper can publish photos of you without your consent. Paparazzi do not have consent to be taking these photos much less selling them, and the tabloids that publish them don't have permission either. You think celebrities consent to having embarrassing and private photos of them taken, then published and for *someone else* to be making the money off them? That makes no sense.

[@prussiaball1871]

​@@jimm60701it's also the business model for every news organization, if politicians could just sue or arrest reporters then we wouldn't have any information on corruption and the like

[@animusnocturnus7131]

In germany, you allways retain the right to your own image. To the point that a photographer can get sued for taking a photo of you without your permission if the photo gets published anywhere.

[@timetourist]

Das ist nur bedingt richtig. In Deutschland gibt es viele verschiedene Fälle wo auch dies gestattet ist (bsw. "Beiwerk", Personen der Zeitgeschichte, ...). Um es in typischer Manier eines Rechtsanwalts auszudrücken: "Es kommt darauf an."

[@N4chtigall]

If thats true then I applaud the Germany for doing that. I find it disgusting that its legal to follow people and take their photos without their permission. Its straight up insane.

[@animusnocturnus7131]

@@timetourist Ja, das ist natürlich richtig, aber eine Handhabung wie in dem veröffentlichten Video beschrieben dürfte nach deutschen Recht einfach nicht durchführbar sein. Die abgebildete Person kann im Falle einer Zeitgeschichtlichen Aufnahme möglicherweise eine Veröffentlichung ihres Bildnisses nicht verhindern, wird aber in jedem Fall weiterhin ihr Recht behalten das eigene Foto zu veröffentlichen.

[@memisemyself]

EU law applies in Germany, regarding copyright. What you wrote is not quiet correct. If you are in a public place, your image has no protection. I can take a photo of you on the street or attending a public event and it can be published in a newspaper or magazine, as an editorial item, related to the event. The caption must be truthful. For example, if I take a photo of you at race meeting A, it can not be published with a caption saying you were at race meeting B or at A on a different date. I can not sell it for any other purpose. In all other circumstances, you are correct, your image is protected but there are caviets.

[@timetourist]

@@animusnocturnus7131 Nein, der Urheber (Fotograf) kann in diesem Fall entscheiden wie das Bild veröffentlicht wird. Wenn ich beispielsweise ein Bild eines Politikers (bei einer öffentlichen Rede) mache und es bei einer Zeitung / oder sonstwo veröffentliche, darf der Politiker nicht das Bild "weiterverwerten" ohne meine Erlaubnis. Besonders dramatisch ist es, wenn nicht Mal der Urheber (hier der Fotograf) genannt wird, da er ein Anrecht darauf hat für seine Arbeit gewürdigt zu werden. Bei prof. Fotoshootings gibt es meist Verträge, welche auch die Veröffentlichung betreffen. Als Beispiel aus der kurzen Vergangenheit kann man den Onlyfans Account von Laura Müller (Frau von Michael Wendler) nennen. Diese hatte Bilder von sich auf der Online-Platform von einem Playboy-Shot veröffentlicht und musste diese zügig entfernen, da sie gegen das Urheberrecht verstießen.

[@tigerlover7359]

Well, here’s another reason not to get my photo taken.

[@ishmiel21]

The reason celebrities don’t understand the copyright laws is because the copyright laws are some of the worst and most broken laws we have in this country. They do not help creators in any way. They are stupid, poorly written, unintuitive, counterproductive laws. They should be changed in some pretty major ways.

[@ghostderazgriz]

I mean, whether or not you're right, this was the one video you chose to make that claim when the law literally protects the maker of the photo from having his profits reaped by the subjects of his photo.

[@ishmiel21]

@@ghostderazgriz The subjects of photos should be able to profit from their photos.

[@gustru2078]

@@ishmiel21 They're not theirs. As simple as that. They stole them as I'm pretty sure the photographer wasn't credited on any of them and they probably didn't ask for his permission either. If he wants to avoid that in the future, he should apply a watermark on his demos and not make the real photos/originals available to anyone who doesn't pay the rights. I'm not so sure he *wants* to avoid this kind of crap though edit: That should be taken into consideration if it goes to court. He has means to not get his work stolen and doesn't use them. Why.

[@darthparallax5207]

They help Disney and Disney is putting creators in jobs. The whole entertainment industry works for Disney. It's in people's interests for things to be good for Disney unless you want layoffs

[@ishmiel21]

@@gustru2078 If someone takes a picture of you, you should be the owner. The reason people buy the photo is because of who they are.

[@taj1994]

I went from "that's dumb" to "that makes sense, but it's still kind of dumb". Lol

[@dandydwi6_6]

But if the cameraman post the photo the celeb can sue it too. But most of them too dumb or too lazy to do that

[@anniepollard3119]

@@dandydwi6_6 no they can't, the photographer has all legal rights to the photograph

[@kello2.077]

@@anniepollard3119 does this apply to paparazzis

[@dandydwi6_6]

@@anniepollard3119 yes they can. But if celeb do that they will be called pety and it will look bad on their reputation

[@shawnsg]

@@dandydwi6_6 No they really can't sue. What law do you think they are violating. Photographers are creating content and they have an exclusive right over it's usage.

[@luislebronaponte2737]

And here I thought they were sued for posting a selfie or something. XD I was like "wha da fu???" before he mentioned the photographer.

[@samlevi4744]

Yeah, paparazzo scum took the pic.

[@GaganSingh-nx2yv]

I think that's the point of a title or headline. To grab attention.

[@drl5002]

Let's not tarnish the profession of photography by calling paparazzi photographers.

[@genghisgalahad8465]

What an awesome vocal and musical analysis on Jinjer Pisces Live Session, Nina Schofield! Flowing! And I'm always awed at musical note recognition and replication! Good note at the end too on the drum suggestion! Great instincts! Yeah, it's so good to pick up on the delivery as healthy! 🎉

[@jurassicpeter]

Here in Germany we have a right called "Recht am eigenen Bild" meaning "right on selfimage" meaning its illegal for people to take your photo in a private or public area without your permission. Exceptions afaik are occasions where you are standing in a group in front of a building someone wants a shot of and can't avoid having you in frame. If you do want to film in public you need a "Drehgenehmigung" a "Permission to film" from your city. So if someone were to take a pic of me without my permission and refuses to delete said picture, I have legal grounds to sue that person. These laws stem from Germanys history and our unwillingness to let a state have as much control over us like the NS or the GDR had. Personal privacy is highly valued here and protected by law.

[@Shadow2pointO]

Well you can sue them for photographing you without consent! You go low, I go lower! Who the hell are these paparazzis?!

[@stevenschmude579]

It’s called the 1st amendment

[@stevenschmude579]

No expectation of privacy in public

[@Dead_Guy_Bob]

You quite literally cannot.

[@zee9709]

The thing is, you can't, go any lower

[@vrcmf3172]

No you cannot. Taking a picture of someone in public or even in private property (within view from a public area) is protected under first amendment.

[@iwontliveinfear]

I have been arguing this for damn near 30 years. No photographer should ever be able to wholly own the rights to any image of another person, ever. All revenue earned from photos taken of a person other than themselves should be shared with the subject of the photograph.

[@xxportalxx.]

there's a few holes that'd need to be patched, for instance if you were selling pictures of a criminal to a newspaper or news agency you wouldn't be able to share the money with the criminal (in the us it's illegal to profit off a criminal act, even indirectly like by writing a book about it). I'd also have to ask I'd this precedent would extend to other art forms, if you included someone in your memoir would you have to pay them when you sold the book? would painters need to share the profits with their subjects?

[@hautehussey]

@@xxportalxx. completely unfillable holes.

[@MrManlyBeardyMan]

Photography is work. Not only in operating, transporting, and maintaining equipment, but also having the know-how to pump out a perfectly balanced and composited photo. Not the same as pulling out your phone and pressing a circle.

[@4lovebysara]

In other countries the citizens own the rights to their own image. It's wild that we don't.

[@Treekicker]

That's not exactly what's happening here though, The legal argument is that they don't own the copyrights to the picture itself. They still own their own image in general. But not the picture. Notifications off

[@4lovebysara]

@bubbanole91 if I owned the rights to my image paparazzi wouldn't be a thing. I'd have to give permissions to use my image. So that IS happening here. This wouldn't happen in other countries where citizens do own their image. The photographer wouldn't be allowed to have my image without my permission AND I could use my own image.

[@east-endjustice7883]

​@@4lovebysarathe reason is cemented in the 1st amendment of the constitution to be able to photograph or record ANYTHING you can see or hear in an area where there is no expectation of privacy and the countries that have restrictions aren't "free countries" and you cant void a right without voiding all the rights and defeating the purpose of America as a free country. These rights are the only thing that separate a free country from a police state even if there are angles and aspects that could be less appreciated, they all are extremely crucial to liberty.

[@4lovebysara]

@east-endjustice7883 idk what you consider "free countries" but that's not exactly accurate. An expectation of privacy isn't what we're talking about here. But if a photographer takes my photo, I should be able to share it without needing express permission from them. It's my face. And it wouldn't change the ability to have surveillance or keep people safe because the right to my image isn't saying that you can't take my photo, but that I could have it removed from the internet if I wanted & that I would have rights to sharing it. Having the right to my own image wouldn't make us any less "free" - though imo freedom in this country is an illusion. 🤷‍♀️

[@banann_ducc]

Change the word photograph to painting/portrait and the law makes a bit more sense. Photography, much like painting is a type of art and as such the artist/photographer gets copyright protections on their work even against the subject of the work. Not saying I agree with this, just that that explanation makes it make a bit more sense

[@danb9460]

At first I was like “well that’s kinda dumb” but then I thought about it for a moment after you said “professional photographer” and I thought “okay now it makes more sense.”

[@StarryNightGazing]

even if it wasn't a professional the case would be the same

[@BigJay039]

Totally.

[@wizenodd7925]

👍🏻

[@EebstertheGreat]

I still don't like the idea that someone can stalk you, take photos of you against your will, post them for everyone to see, and then sue you if you try to post them yourself. I understand that you can't stop people from taking photos of others in public, but it seems like you shouldn't get the legal monopoly over distributing images of other people without their permission. There should be some sort of negotiation involved.

[@vistry2036]

I disagree. I would say two ppl own the copyright to any photo. The photographer, and the subject. Without the subject there is no photo, and the photographer would never profit from their photos if the subject wasn't there. Yet if the photographer never took the photo, it would not exist and the subjects, who are in a way proffitting off the photo, are consequently doing so without sharing said profits with the photographer. Thus, since its still true that the photohrapher and the subject both collaborated in a way to make the photo, any profits do indeed have to be shared equally between the two. So nevermind. I agree. He should sue.

[@brentschellekens4151]

That's broken law right there, we live in a world where you have to protect yourself in order not to be sued for using someone's photograph of yourself

[@natibinyam9264]

I don't wanna argue but it's sort of the same situation if someone painted a picture of you. They would keep the rights to it even if it has u in it as long as u consent to it

[@fictitiousnightmares]

Seems like common sense to me. You do not own that photograph, the person who took it/created it owns it. It is their property. What in the world would make you think you own it and can use it?

[@quokka_yt]

Well, the celebrities are in the wrong here. They had literally no right to post those photos, the author had complete copyright ownership and as far as I'm aware not given them permission. Being the subject of a photograph does not make you the copyright holder, and nor should it.

[@potato6785]

@@natibinyam9264the key part of what you said is “as long as you consent” Celebrities don’t give consent to paparazzi.

[@mrlamejoke]

Except that this doesn’t apply to the average person. You can’t publish a photograph the subject of which is a private person. This does not apply to public figures in public places.

[@jakeofnotrades13579]

I can't blame them for assuming they had the copyright of themselves

[@_qwe_fk_1700]

How???

[@memisemyself]

They didn't own the photo, they didn't pay the photographer, they didn't own the camera, why would they think they had copyright?

[@jakeofnotrades13579]

Because like most people they're probably not well versed in copyright law, and it's not hard to assume you wouldn't need permission to use an image of yourself

[@memisemyself]

@@jakeofnotrades13579 They pay people to know these things and make sure they act within the law. Their hope was that their fame and wealth who let them get away with it. Ignorance is never an acceptable defence.

[@jakeofnotrades13579]

@@memisemyself I'm not saying they're in the right, i know legally they're not. I'm just saying it's easy to see why they thought they were in the right, and I, as a not legal official, am not going to look down on them for this mistake.

[@mcmullen_photo]

Every wedding photographer has entered the chat

[@awesomecake_abc2748]

Well obviously the people getting married are paying the wedding photographers for the rights to the photos.

[@court2379]

​​​@@awesomecake_abc2748Its still pretty common for photographers to retain rights to those photos. Then force you to go thru them for any prints. Why anyone hires these photographers, I don't know.

[@josephmckee3605]

The wedding photographer is a contractor you pay them to take photos of you so you own the rights, now if a photographer pays you to model they own the rights to the photo and you can't post them without consent

[@court2379]

@@josephmckee3605 That all depends on the contract.

[@potatohead826]

If I was a celebrity this happened to me, I would just quit. Like the fact I can’t post a picture of myself?

[@JaredConnell]

Dear show business, I'm putting in my two weeks notice

[@joelmulder]

Why should the law be different for a celebrity? As a photographer, I’ve had companies use my photos of their products in their advertisements without my permission. And I doubt anyone would say that’s fair. People have the right to be payed for their work.

[@soren3569]

@@joelmulder Yes, but the paparazzi example (note: NOT a contracted situation) entails the fact that the photographer is making their money off the celebrity's years (or even decades) of hard work in establishing a brand. Without that time, money and effort, the celebrity photo would be almost worthless, because most folks don't want photos of random Joes walking down the street. The paparazzi are feeding off the work of others, here. So the proposal I'm making (I fully understand the law-as-it-is, and I'm suggesting that it's inadequate) would be to continue to allow public-locale photos, and the photographer would retain the right to sell the image--however, the copyright would ALSO be owned by the subject of the photos. Don't want to run the risk of a subject posting the pic to their Instagram? Get a signed release that gives you the copyright, or go take someone else's photo.

[@potatohead826]

@@joelmulder ok, but I can’t put a picture of my self? Also, the guy who does this does it on purpose.

[@justalonelypoteto]

if you don't pay a photographer, why would you have a right to publish them? you have a right to your own likeness, but not to pictures of it that others have made. You can forbid them from using he pictures and to some extent it is probably not even legal to just photograph people in public in the first place, but that doesn't mean you suddenly own the photos

[@yeetusskeetus6527]

Something tells me someone aint gonna wake up if he keeps suing people's idols

[@dragonetafireball]

Man has found himself an unorthodox business model

[@ehow5678]

Those celebrities should get a restraining order against the photographer

[@loneshewolf6015]

Now I understand why Hybe doesn't let people photograph it's artists in public...

[@voiceofdistortedreason5998]

It's absolutely rude to take photos of anyone without express permission. Paparazzi should be illegal.

[@loneshewolf6015]

@@voiceofdistortedreason5998 totally agree 💜

[@thedeets_]

Oh my gosh I know right! Like imagine stalking someone for a living and that is your job like how we allow that in modern society is horrifying

[@moafighting1597]

This is why every photo that is ever taken of them is OWNED BY HYBE

[@FelipeElGatoBustamanteRenda]

@@moafighting1597 Then HYBE can sue their own artists!

[@ruslad1991]

There should be exceptions to copyright like pictures of yourself because the person taking the picture isn’t the only one in the crowd taking the pictures so how could that be considered “his work”

[@VexKingYoutube]

Say it with me! "Paparazzi shouldn't exist since they're paid stalkers!"

[@blackmark2899]

They exist for the sole reason to make celebs be celebs. Without them they wouldn't have the glam and fame or be remembered nearly as much as they are now.

[@warlord95Sweden]

In Sweden it's illegal to take a picture of someone without their consent, and if they still do it, you then own the photo.

[@foilenjoyer8667]

must suck to live in sweden

[@kpro8908]

I know that the first part is true, generally, but I have never seen a legal citation for the second part about copyright automatically transferring to the subject if the photo was non-consensual. Do you happen to have a link? I don’t doubt it, but it would be very interesting to see more information about how that law works (English or Swedish would be fine, I don’t know enough Swedish to accurately search for laws myself but I’ll make do if you have a link!)

[@alalalala57]

I wish we can sue people who take our photos.

[@afcgeo882]

Why? Do you wish you could sue people for seeing you?

[@BrooksFoodLooks]

You can sue whoever you want, whether or not it gets thrown out is a different story, assuming you are U.S. ofc.

[@cencalrigger]

@@afcgeo882 yes. Don't perceive me.

[@SirTorcharite]

Don't let any 1A auditors find that out! 😂😂😂

[@suedenim9208]

I wish we could sue stupid morons with no clue about the first amendment who dont let that stop them from posting their stupid and unfounded opinions on the internet.

[@ronaldmello1831]

There needs to be a change in copyright laws. Unless the photographer is paid to take those photos, they should not be copywritten.

[@jewelyJewels]

Hannah Barbera has really come into their own since they made all those cartoons! So proud of them! Live your best life babe!

[@anitaschvitz9749]

I know one thing. I wouldn’t let bob take a photo of me to save my life.

[@tailsofpearls]

Unfortunately he's a paparazzo. He didn't exactly have consent

[@samlevi4744]

You don’t have much choice. Paparazzi stalk and harass celebrities to get pics in public.

[@TheAwesomes2104]

Sad thing is that for this to happen to you, you don't have to let them take a photo of you. You could just be going to the grocery store and they could snap a photo of you and own the image

[@lukeschonkeren4602]

@@TheAwesomes2104 that’d be illegal without your consent tho,

[@DoubleADwarf]

Bold of you to assume that consent matters in the United States anymore.

[@tsunderefan6072]

That’s why when I go to the fair and they offer to take my photo I always say “No, I’ll take my own” 😎

[@tylerbakeman]

Makes sense. Copyright Act is very clear about intellectual property: property is automatically copyrighted as the work of the photographer the moment it is created; if the photographer is being paid to take photos, in general, the intellectual property belongs to the company paying them. In public spaces, you can take photos and videos (freedom of press), and since photography is seen as a form of artwork - it is protected by copyright law (understandably). It is an interesting collision of law that takes place when the photograph is of another person, or another person’s property. It usually isn’t a grey area, because there are also laws that might prevent unwanted photos. (those laws might not apply if you are at a public space- I’m just not sure the constraints of freedom of press).

[@ElaborateTiger]

This reminds me of the case with the death metal band Arch Enemy posting concert photos without crediting the photographers and after one photographer made a fuss about it they banned them from all future shows in retaliation.

[@HannibalKantter]

Based band

[@zockertwins]

I guess they are arch enemies now

[@hautehussey]

And therefore have much worse photos in the future I bet. Dumb.

[@MrFelblood]

It's so weird to see creative professionals fighting against giving proper payment and credit to creative professionals.

[@HJSDGCE]

@@HannibalKantter Based by refusing to give credit to the photographer? I didn't realise we're in the age of shaming professionals for asking to get paid.

[@jorgelotr3752]

Had this happened in a country where rights to image exists, Barbera wouldn't be making so much money from suing the celebrities.

[@myfamiliar795]

how's that work

[@asimpleman6464]

Right to privacy?

[@galactorsus_i.n.c]

@@myfamiliar795 basically you have the right where you face is posted and where not So you as the one in the photo can sue anyone who uses your face in something you don't want but nobody can force you to remove any photos of yourself (unless you're with someone who doesn't want to be on camera)

[@boxhead6177]

I am a bit more surprised after the first couple of instances, he hasn't been blocklisted from being anywhere near these events.

[@eskiltester3913]

@@myfamiliar795 portrait right

[@Secret_Moon]

At this point I really suspect Barbera intentionally sent the photos to his subjects with a note says "Post it" so he could sue them later.

[@evannibbe9375]

That would be “permission” and thus a de facto non-exclusive contract to allow them to post it, which would guarantee his loss in the case.

[@MrDoverfield]

Ngl he sounds like pos

[@jacobhargiss9909]

Good for this guy.

[@nathanos42]

Barbera "I need my Payday too"

[@dejavuman22]

Could you make a video explaining photography copyright? The only reason I know anything about it is because my GF is a photographer. It's NOT as simple and straightforward as one might think.

[@BigDolton]

the person who takes the picture owns the copyright. If you hire a photographer, in your contract will either mention you have "exclusive usage rights" so you can use it however u want but the photographer owns the copyright or simply it states u own the copyright.

[@drebk]

It actually is fairly simple and straightforward. The person who takes the photo owns the copyright UNLESS they were hired to do so (and the contract stipulated that the commissioner owns the copyright)... Why these multi millionaire celebrities don't either hire their own photographers OR just take a selfie like the rest of us schmucks is a bit beyond me. Of all the people to know better... they are.

[@fakjbf3129]

@@drebk Or contact Barbera and ask for permission to use the photo, probably for a fee.

[@drebk]

@@fakjbf3129 yeah, they know better They just think the law ought not apply to them

[@Metrion77]

@@drebk "The person who takes the photo owns the copyright UNLESS they were hired to do so" Not if the subject or the owner of the subject does not give permission. Paparazzi photos and photos of copyrighted objects like statues taken without the creator's permission are the property of the subject. Hence the post office war memorial stamp case.

[@persuasivebarrier2419]

Getting to make money from their name and body, but they still get sued? That will never not be weird.

[@StarryNightGazing]

it's not their name and body, it's a professional who took his own photographs.

[@grecleclerc8486]

@@StarryNightGazing Who took his own photographs of… guess what…. their body because of their famous name and uses those photographs likely for profit. So yeah, it’s weird and messed up.

[@StarryNightGazing]

@@grecleclerc8486 duhh, celebs also use those photographs for profits. They want to infringe copyright, then they can take their own photos instead of leaching off the work of professionals!

[@RHCole]

@@StarryNightGazing ...still weird and messed up.

[@grecleclerc8486]

@@StarryNightGazing The “professionals” shouldn’t be allowed to take photos of them without their consent then. Why can you profit off of them when they can’t profit off of you? Either you can both profit off of each other or neither of you profit. Fair is fair. Brands have to pay for celebrities to promote them, modeling is a real industry, so why a special exception for photographers that makes no sense?

[@Jkjoannaki]

I wonder why his passion is photographing super rich famous people. Such an artist

[@ceoatcrystalsoft4942]

He's a dirty thief that no one wants around

[@MrFelblood]

If you're good at something, don't do it for free.

[@AJ-em2rb]

they never signed a model release and Instagram's format definitely transforms the image to a smaller resolution, changes the color depth, and potentially changes the aspect ratio as well. i think there's more wiggle room in these than it seems, especially with how incomplete copyright law is plus the murkiness of IG terms of service.