Copyright question?
- Started
- Last post
- 4 Responses
- keiTai
Assume i picked a random photo of the sun via google and i am using it for a project. And i haven't paid the photographer. I'm in the wrong, right?
But what about when i'm looking for a sporter, better yet it's a photo of myself but taken by a photographer. Where lays the copyrights and is this internationally the same??
- ian0
Oh, well thats a tricky one. Because legally the photographer owns the rights to all the images he has taken, yet if you didn't give him permission to use it, you have some legal comeback.
Heres copyright issues for the states, but its similar in most EU countries too. http://www.photosecrets.com/tips…
- tx ian, it was a real situation/question at a running forum.keiTai
- ribit0
I think with a photo of yourself there will be some 'fair use' allowances, depending how you are using it...
- 23kon0
Yes you are in the wrong in the case of the first part.
If a photographer has taken a photo of YOU, just because you are in the photo doesnt mean you can publish or replicate this image.
This is the way that wedding photographers work. You never get the negs - or have to pay a fortune to. They charge per copy of per print and you are NOT allowed to put these images online.
(obviously different photographers have different rules).But yeah just cos you are in a pic doesnt give you the right to publish/reproduce it.
- neverblink0
Photographic works often are portraits of specific persons. They may, but need not necessarily be, commissioned by the portrayed persons. Many copyright laws contain provisions that require the author to get permission from the portrayed person when publishing the portrait.
In case the portrait was not commissioned, e.g. a photo taken on the street, the portrayed person should demonstrate some likelihood of damage that can arise from the publication. A famous person could for instance argue that he normally charges for photos, and so the unauthorized portrait robs him of this income.