If someone takes a picture of you, who owns the rights to the picture...

If someone takes a picture of you, who owns the rights to the picture? Information on the internet is very vague and does not clarify. If the person then sends out the picture but doesnt identify you, is it slander?

Other urls found in this thread:

photo.stackexchange.com/questions/25511/if-someone-makes-a-picture-of-me-who-owns-the-right-to-it
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

pictures with consent are intellectual property of the person who took it user.

consent being the key word.

CHECKED

Nice quint5
Inb4 shitstorm

I have no rights to it being used? I didn't sign anything that gave up my rights. Yes I knew she was taking a picture, but i thought you had to sign over rights.

Look come back. I need to understand this.

So, if someone fucked you and you did nothing to prevent it, not even a sign. Would you call the police and accuse the person for rape?

Yes = Feminist
No = Average human

It depends on the state, but there is the issue of expectation of privacy. And in some states it is possible to _implicitly consent_ to a photograph by not objecting to it.

Chick in the photo probably would have a case if she knew she was plastered all over the internet and could possibly sue you and win if she wanted to.

But it's not as cut and dry as "I own all instances of my photograph."

Check

Not same guy, but I think there's a difference between displaying a photo and displaying it for commercial gain.

If it's just on Facebook, then specific consent isn't required.
If it's for an ad campaign, then consent is required.

Need more details on the situation.

Dubs

It isn't being used for commercial use. More that she did it maliciously to get it spread.

Whether it constitutes slander(or libel, not sure which for photographs) depends on whether the person is depicted in a way deliberately to make them appear different to who they are normally. That is obviously really really subjective and it depends on the judge. However that's not the only basis for which you could have a case against someone owning your photograph. They might have intruded on your privacy, or you might have not consented to being photographed(not as simple as now saying "I do not consent" just after you see it somewhere).

If it's taken in a public place, there is no consent required
Happened to me freshman year. Took a pic of me smoking weed on the green and published it in a paper. I couldn't do shit about it because I was in public

1. Checked
2. You own the picture at all time, however, publishing the picture is where the rules change.

In my country we have a law that is called "het portretrecht" (displaying right). If someone took a picture of me (even with consent) but published it on any media to make money or slander me; I can sue that person for not asking for publishment consent. Putting someone on the internet in example is considered publishing.

Wrong. Then celebrities would get paid for every paparazzi picture of them. They don't. The photographer does. You only need to consent if the pic is taken in a private location. In public you can walk up to anyone and take pictures and then charge people to look at them. If the pic was in private and you consented, or in public at all, you have no say in how it's used.

PUT ME ON THE SCREENSHOT PLEASE

She did not identify me in sending out the picture, she just wanted to make me the laughing stock on the internet. Would it have had to be her identifying me for it to be slander

It won't be slander, retard. Give up.

If you didn't know you were being photographed, then it is possible for you to argue that you did not consent.

Yes you do, even in public when someone makes money off you (by your picture) or damages your image with it you can sue his ass. only reason this never happens is because celebs live on papparazis, as long as they are important they will allow it.

Let's say that I did know she was taking it. (it would be very hard to argue that i didn't know cause she was extremely close to me when she took it). There are no other "rights" I have?

Whether it constitutes an intentional act to make you look stupid depends on the judge.

We can't have people bitching that a photograph makes a person look bad when what they're doing ACTUALLY IS BAD AND TOTALLY REASONABLE TO THINK IS BAD.

Imagine that world. Where there are no pictures of donald trump or hillary clinton except when they're smiling with the fakest shit eating grins ever at press events.

*shudder*

That is extremely vague. Yes I was doing what the picture shows me doing it hence why it is in the picture. It has morphed into being the top search results for a particular word now on google. I am running out of ways to think of getting it to just go away

Oh, lol. You want it to go away? No user, you don't sue someone for this if you want it to go away, you just sue them to hurt them for hurting you.

It isn't ever going to go away.

You are shitstorm

I can't be one word google search away from anyone in the world seeing that picture

You're fucked. There is a way to get google to stop that shit, but only if you're rich enough. And if you were rich enough for that, you'd be asking your lawyer about this, not us.

If its being used for commercial purposes in most countries you should have to sign a waiver.
If its being posted online against your wishes you might have the option of suing or taking the party to court in some countries. For example in some states in Australia posting revenge porn is illegal and carries jail time

See

Oh who cares?! Find a real problem. Shit.

Literally just Google it, retard. Asking Sup Forums for information is kind of stupid but here I did the work for you. It took me two seconds. You now owe me money for the labor of educating you. Please donate to [email protected]

photo.stackexchange.com/questions/25511/if-someone-makes-a-picture-of-me-who-owns-the-right-to-it

Impressive.

I said I did google it. The whole "consent" thing is vague as hell. I figure that people on here have had to deal with this.

We need to see the picture first, then maybe we'd be more motivated to help

saved

I am not a fucking idiot

You literally have zero right to privacy in a public setting in like 90% of the world you fucking ape.

Literally fucking in the link I posted
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

>The whole "consent" thing is vague as hell.
Actually no, it's not vague at all. If someone is the focus of a picture, you need their permission to use it. You only have rights to use their picture as a photographer if you have explicit permission from the subject.

However, if you're taking a picture of someone and others are in the background as bystanders, you do NOT need THEIR permission.

So I knew she was taking the picture but she still needed consent to send it out correct? She sent it out under a "educational" use excuse. So I do have recourse on her since i did not say you can send it out then right?

One other question, if a site is using it (its a wiki) and the file states it is public domain, how am i supposed to combat that? I appreciate the advice. I normally get shit advice.

Did you tell her she could do it?

Take the picture? Yes. We were just having fun. Never said anything about sending it out.

Attorney here. Please stop talking about slander.

Assuming you live in the USA, your situation is not any form of defamation lawsuit. Taking a picture of someone, no matter how bad you look in it (unless it's illegal) is not against any rule, and neither is putting it online without your permission.

For an ordinary person, you have almost no recourse legally if someone takes a picture of you in a public place, or in a private place that you allowed them to be.

If they doctor the pictures or accompany them with a statement that draws someone to a false conclusion, now you're talking about some legal issues.

But in a vacuum? My friend, you are what we refer to in the legal profession as "shit out of luck"

That is the reason why i wasn't sure about the consent thing. Is there more than one consent she would need to send it out? me giving consent to pose for the picture did that screw me?

So are the rest of the people in here not knowing what they are talking about or is it you? She said she was making the picture public domain which makes this even worse. she has that power to make a picture of another person public domain?

Three things to think about: 1) public space vs private, 2) use of pic, and 3) impact on you.

1) If you're in public, tough shit. Pics of you can be used for anything as long as the main purpose is not to fuck with you. You can be in a Target ad without getting paid.

2) How the person uses the pic also affects this. If they posted it on FB, tough shit. If they used it to build a Target campaign that obviously features your ugly face, then you can sue because they're making money off your likeness, which is your "property". Likewise, you can claim slander if the pic is used in an AIDS campaign with you as the unofficial spokesman.

3) It's only slander if you can prove harm to you. If you just hate how you look in the pic, tough shit. You need to prove damage somehow.

I agreed to her taking it in private. She broke up with me and sent it out and calling it public domain. It has spread around image boards, used on blogs about the subject of what it shows and ended up on a wiki which is the first photo that comes up in google images when you type in a certain word.

Hey, you're the auto-fellatio guy!

We already answered your question 100 times.

Fuck off, I am just asking about rights and who owns a picture etc. This information applies to everyone

Are you the humongous guy?

This isn't an educational thread.
This is about you sucking your own dick, consenting to having it taken, and her making you look like a faggot.

You were real proud of that ability of autofellatio until she posted it.

Fuck off faggot.

Yes it fucking is a educational thread. There was a lot of good information in this thread before you decided to hijack it.

Wait, so you really are the self sucking twink?

Wasted.
Quints.

For online pictures, you can get them pulled for one of three reasons: invasion of privacy, right of publicity, or defamation.

As a normal person, you don't have access to right of publicity.

Invasion of privacy isn't available because you let it happen. Remember kids, do not let people take pictures of you doing compromising things.

Defamation isn't available unless they doctor it or otherwise try to use it to paint you in a false light. All she did was spread it about, so there's no defamation. As an undoctored picture, it is true, and therefore not defamation (as a side note, my favorite defense in all of law, Truth, generally protects pictures from defamation suits).

I don't care what the other anons told you. Unless the picture is pornographic or otherwise illegal due to consent or content issues, she can do whatever she wants. She only needed your permission to take the picture.

Keep in mind that the particularities of the law fluctuates from state to state so I can only speak in general terms when I say that you are probably boned.

But I can tell from the fact that you're still frantically asking that you're the sort of person who will keep reaching until someone tells you what you want to hear.

If that's actually you and the picture is pornographic in nature, you might have other options, particularly depending on your age and state laws. I haven't seen the picture myself.

Checked

Google autofellatio. He's the third or fourth pic on google.

Pornographic in nature. He was 18+ at the time, and concented until it became famous.

I'd really rather not google it so I'll take your word for it that it is pornographic.

A large number of states have launched laws to stop a typical disgruntled ex-lover from releasing revenge porn, as congress realized it was becoming a problem. Depending on his state he may have access to legal cause of action for this.

It is not famous just because it is on a no name wiki.

not congress, states. Not sure why I wrote congress

I appreciate the legal advice. So i could have legal action, but does that change the classification that she gave it of public domain? How does that work

I'd just kill her. Your life is over anyways, why not?

Keep in mind we're really leaving my area of expertise as we move to public domain and copyright stuff. As far as pictures go, public domain just means she relinquished her rights as the photographer/owner of the picture, so anyone can use it for any purpose without crediting her or asking her permission or paying her, etc.

On an unrelated note, whether you have a criminal and/or civil suit against her is going to come down to what State you live in, and how they implemented the anti-revenge porn laws.

That's not how you've been advertising it.
And third pic on google is "famous" in the picture world.

heading to lunch now, good luck user.

I missed the thread.

Someone post op's pic pls

Your definition of famous is much different than mine. As soon as it is off that site it will no longer be on that search.

Not to mention after the advice given to me in this thread, the site will have to take the pic down.