Who owns your image?

[pandora_parrot]

What do you get when you mix a bunch of traumatized, stressed-out people with a ton of alcohol and a failure to communicate? You get a lot of yelling and hurt feelings. i.e. DRAMUH...

Although the party yesterday was awesome, it ended on a bit of a sour note with a bit of a conflict regarding privacy, property, and photography. I think the situation was badly handled by all involved and could have been bettered handled if people were A) sober, B) able to communicate more clearly with one another and C) not stressed out or traumatized about a million other things.

Although the situation is now more or less resolved, it lead to some interesting discussion on the nature of photography, privacy, and related concepts. Various topics were discussed, such as, "Who owns your likeness?" and "Is it assault to take a photo of an unwilling subject?" Although we pretty much determined the answers to these things in the legal sense, I felt that we had not fully explored all of the avenues of thought regarding the answers to these questions in the social sense.

To give you an example of what I mean, the paparazzi that follow celebrities around are well within their rights legally (at least sometimes), but socially, they are performing the unethical act of taking away a celebrity's privacy. One might describe them as the scum of the earth in this sense.

Socially, it is vital for reporters and journalists to take photos of situations and people as part of their freedom of the press to present information to the public. The law also supports this social rule.

The situation we had was nothing like any of this as the people involved were a hell of a lot more reasonable, but I think it's an interesting philosophical question. Who owns your image? What is an appropriate response to an uncooperative photographer? What about to a cooperative one?

So... I thought I'd take a poll to see what people think about this. I'd also love to read your thoughts on the topic. Please explain your answers in comments, if you like. I will not be responding, however, because of my closeness to the actual situation. I am still intrigued by the general/abstract question at hand, though. And keep in mind that I'm not talking about the legal realities/ramifications of any of this. Just the social realities/rules/mores/etc.

btw: The multiple choice of "reasonable reaction" is assuming you've asked the person to delete/destroy the image, and they refuse.

[Poll #1492015]

Comments

[pouchedfox.livejournal.com]

In some cultures, taking a photograph is believed to steal the soul. Believing that it does harm to you or not, should not prevent someone from controlling how their likeness is used. On a public street, where we are watched by cams constantly, having a videocam on us isnt as unnerving as a photographer. If the photographer is taking pictures of the scene and we just happen to be in it thats not as unnerving as if we feel singled out for some reason, similar to someone profiling us, or taking our dna, or fingerprints,or our blood. It's a piece of us even if its made up of reflected photons that we've selected.

I think we must not forget the human element thats on both sides of the tech, even though we are constant redefining what it means to be human, how it affects our culture is always a concern.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

Agreed. This is one of those human social things that I don't really know much about and am looking to understand more deeply.

[parmonster.livejournal.com]

"Personally speaking, are you generally okay with people taking your photograph?"

I can't provide a general answer to this. There are cases where I am okay, and cases where I'm not.

"If you ask someone not to take your photograph, and they do anyways, what is a reasonable response?"

None of the above: I'd ask that they delete the image. An rude person might say no, but that'll be a good indication that I should avoid them in the future.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

*nods* As mentioned, the question assumes that you've already asked and they've refused. For the most specific and "black & white" sort of situation.

[fabmadamj.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that a drawing or portrait can violate your privacy because it isn't you. It's an artist's rendering of you. Conceptually, you and the person in the picture are not the same person.

While I answered "no" to all of the questions, I have given people static about taking my picture without asking me. Because sometimes you get nihilistic "why bother" Jetta and sometimes you get "give me time to pose, fucker" Jetta.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

First of all, we're talking about a private or at least semi-private social situation, right? If I'm at a ballgame and someone takes my picture, I don't feel I have much to say about it.

But if I'm with friends and I'm in the middle of something I might have trouble explaining to my boss/mom/maiden aunt, or I think I don't look my best, or I just don't fucking want to have my picture taken, I have a right to ask not to be photographed, and I think the would-be photographer, as a friend and fellow human being, has an obligation to respect that request. If he doesn't, it may not be assault, but it's pretty severe rudeness.

I would seek a non-violent resolution: I'd get hold of the camera and delete the photo in question. Not all the photos -- that'd be vengeful. I hate to be an asshole, but once an awkward moment gets on the Internet it's everywhere forever; I'd rather be an asshole about one photograph for five minutes than have it haunting me for the next twenty years.

This doesn't apply to drawings and paintings because we don't traditionally attribute reliable factual truth to drawings and paintings. I'm aware that Photoshop etc. have hollowed out this traditional view, but still....

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

>> I would seek a non-violent resolution: I'd get hold of the camera and delete the photo in question.

What on earth makes you think this is a non-violent resolution?

[parmonster.livejournal.com]

What are Earth makes you think it's violent for a person to remove an unauthorized recording of themself.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

California Penal Code section 211. "Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."

Most photogs I know wear their cameras on straps around their neck. In this case, your efforts to "get hold of the camera" would complete all the elements of a violent felony for which you could very well go to state prison.

I suppose in theory if someone were passing a camera around, you could snag it and delete images from it, and returning it promptly would narrowly avoid a theft charge, but I would be surprised in any potential confrontation if a photographer would be so careless about losing control of their camera.

You have no right to control a photograph taken of you. None whatsoever. You can sue for certain types of publication for profit in which your likeness is used to make other people money, or where the image is used to impugn your reputation, or when the photograph is taken in violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a restroom stall or in your own home from outside) but you can no more take a photograph from a photographer once it has been taken than I can take $20 from your wallet.

I work for people who devoutly wish they had the power to break cameras and erase film, and would spend millions of dollars to establish such a right if they could. No such luck.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm

[parmonster.livejournal.com]

You're assuming a forcible taking of the camera. What if no force was involved? What if the photographer handed the camera willingly to their victim?

[uncledark.livejournal.com]

If the photographer was not willing, force was involved.

If the photographer willingly gave it over, he or she is either too trusting, or rather naive. They have no way of knowing what you or I would do with it, or if we're tech-savvy enough to delete the one image without messing something up.

If the photographer was willing to let you delete the image, they'd probably be willing to do it themselves. More willing than they would to hand over a god-knows-how-expensive bit of tech to a stranger.

[phantomdancer.livejournal.com]

Well, assuming the photograher was holding the camera at the time that would be assault.
Either way that would be larceny/robbery.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

The *actual* situation has been adequately resolved. What I'm looking into is the further analysis of the philosophy of the situation that occurred by looking at more extreme situations.

[mayamaia.livejournal.com]

I should point out that, as the primary focus of the art, a photographer is usually extremely attached to the camera, possessive and protective. Taking it without permission is not a simple action, but one full of emotional stresses, ranging everywhere from concern over its safety to jealous shock over having something so precious in another's hands. I actually expect a much more violent reaction from a photographer concerned over her camera than from any individual concerned over her image.

[mantic-angel.livejournal.com]

While definitely good to be aware that the photographer might react this way, it seems to me that if the photographer has already violated me by ignoring my clearly stated wishes, I have no real ethical requirement to care about their own feelings.

That said, I DO have ethical objections to "theft", "destruction of property", and so-forth.

[thespatula.livejournal.com]

I generally don't mind people taking my picture, but appreciate being asked first. When I ask people not to take a picture, i hope that respect me enough to oblige, and will ask them to delete/destroy it if they do. I would also stress if they refuse, to not share it. However, I do not like my image reposted or shared without my permission unless the person possessing the image knows me well enough to know whether I would have issue with it being shared. A good example is at a party this halloween, I was sitting on the couch in a way that was giving everyone a nice pantie shot. I knew the photographer well enough that she knew what I would find appropriate to share on her website. She did get a nice shot of my undies, but only posted a pic where my foot was placed in a way where you couldn't see anything, which was fine by me.

[nodesignation.livejournal.com]

Really, to me, the circumstances that I'm in matter infinitely more than the medium used to take the image. Let's say I'm mostly naked in a dungeon getting fucked and someone jumps over and snaps a picture -- that's time for a freakout and contacting the dungeon monitors to resolve the situation. Now, let's say they simply watched me and came back next week with a painting of me in the same circumstance, I would still freak out a bit. Although, depending on how recognizable I was, perhaps not as much. If they presented the painting to me as a gift, it doesn't seem like a privacy violation at all. I'd be flattered yet a bit suspicious of them and their intentions. The only difference with the different mediums is being potentially less recognizable and potentially less reproducible, but the main concerns would be the same.

So it's the context of the picture and what I have to gain or lose from it. If they brought a camera into a no-photos zone in an event, or they take a picture of someone who's set up a booth and specifically charging for photos, or if it's a photo that could potentially get me in a lot of trouble -- then I can see the concerns. In the vast majority of cases, though, I don't care. Even if I'm annoyed at someone being uncouth, I personally don't consider it a violation.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

I think that would be the reaction of most reasonable people, which is why it wasn't listed. I'm specifically interested in what would happen to folks if they *did* ask and the photographer refused.

Pictures

[jaquiregina.livejournal.com]

I think the idea of using the painting instead of a camera picture helps to clarify it a bit. While I have no expectation of privacy in a public space, I would expect to have my wishes to have my picture taken or not respected. I doubt I would be give that respect, yet I desire it. Again, in a private setting it is more about boundaries and respect. I would want to be asked, especially now that so much is posted on line with tags and such that I might be searchable. I would expect my family, friends, or guests to respect my desires, but I doubt it is legally enforceable.
Recently I was in Santa Fe. A large number of Native Americans were on the square selling arts and crafts. So many of them had beautiful faces with a lot of character, but they almost all asked their picture not be taken. I went out of my way to always ask and respect their wishes as I know that is a sensitive cultural issue. Does anyone ever deserve less respect then that?

[paka.livejournal.com]

Yay, the internet is back and I can finally post comments!

I do thumbnails of people without asking permission, which is probably dodgy. I figure it's okay because there's a level of interpretation which is mine, but more because I'm doing these as a way of getting a better understanding of the variations in humanity and the mass/contours of features - so this isn't finished stuff I plan to publish or sell. And, of course, I've seen a lot of careful boundary setting about portraiture.

But photographs are different, because they get down a much more representational image than portraiture, and they take less time than my little thumbnail sketches. I think that creates more responsibility on the artist's part to have clear permissions.

I think there's also a contextual thing. If you snap a photo of me as part of a crowd on a street, then you're obviously making art about the nature of the place or moment - you don't need permission, but if I notice and say, hey, you just snapped my photo, not cool, please don't publish that, we're interacting out of politeness. But if you snap a photo of me dancing around naked (that never happens, right?) then you're making art specifically about me, and therefore I should have more right to say yes or no about publishing/selling the stuff.

[phantomdancer.livejournal.com]

My answers are dependent upon you being in a public place at the time the photograph was taken

[mayamaia.livejournal.com]

A lot of whether it's okay has to do with circumstances. There is a world of difference between an anonymous photo and one in which there has been any interaction with the subject - and a world of difference between a photograph in a public place and at a private party. In any sort of intimate setting, permission should be confirmed, I think, both because there is freedom to do so and because it maintains the feeling of safety that intimate settings are usually DESIGNED to convey or provide.

If such confirmation can be obtained in public settings, it is good to get it there, too.

As for reasonable responces, for an angry person to demand compensation seems natural for our society. People have a strange sense of dignity that thy are willing to give it up or give it a rest when money is involved, but there you have it. That person probably feels it lets the photographer off easy, too. You can bet they don't know the laws, and you can bet they don't care: their dignity has been challenged, money is their honorable solution, and if it is refused, honor stops seeming necessary.

For the photographer, I think empathy is necessary, even to take the photos. That empathy should be extended after the art, just as intimacy should extend after a sexual encounter, for the same reasons. You have shared a moment with the person: that moment is soiled if you won't respect them in the morning.

[weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com]

Do nothing. There's nothing you can legally do anyways.
Demand that the person pay you for your image.
Attack the person in retaliation for their action.
Somehow take their camera and destroy their film/delete their pictures.

Out of those options, I was a bit bothered that there was no 'politely request that the photo be deleted' option.
There was one option that was not violent...only one. I'm rather disturbed by that.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

The question assumes that you've asked already and have been refused.

I'm interested in how people behave when the other party stops being reasonable, to evaluate the reaction of people to an extreme example of a situation.

[weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com]

Ok. I think I would have preferred if that had been made more clear.

Even knowing that though, I still am disturbed that most of the 'options' are either violent or hostile.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

Okay. So assuming that the photographer refuses to delete the photographs, what more can/would *you* do?

[weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com]

barring doing 'nothing'...I don't see as there *are* any other *viable* options.

Doing anything else would be potentially legally actionable and no matter how much I might not have wanted my picture taken at that moment, I'm not willing to go to jail over it.

[uncledark.livejournal.com]

Over a photo? Not likely.

I suppose that, if the photo of you in that situation would lead inevitably to serious injury or damage to yourself or others, and there was no other way to prevent that damage than using violence against the photographer, and if the violence of the action was proportional to the damage to be done by the photo, then sure. But how often are you going to be reasonably sure that all these are true?

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

I see that I should have made that more clear after writing the question. Unfortunately, I don't thinky ou can edit polls.

[weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com]

maybe not, but you *can* edit the post to clarify that point.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

I put this in yesterday at some point: "btw: The multiple choice of "reasonable reaction" is assuming you've asked the person to delete/destroy the image, and they refuse."

Can you suggest an improvement?

[weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com]

I must have missed that bit.

and no...I don't know that that could be worded any better. I just don't like the *other* choices listed (I'll admit that I can't think of any other options that are not violent/hostile but are still proactive though)

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

*nods* Exactly my problem. These are the only responses I can think of to a photographer that is being uncommunicative and unreasonable.

[pouchedfox.livejournal.com]

who do they work for? who are they selling the picture to? Is there someone else we can talk to? Can we explain it in a better way, a different approach, or understand the persons reason for not aggreeing and find a way to satisfy that (ie compensate for used film maybe).

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

who do they work for?
You don't know. They may be independent.

who are they selling the picture to?
You have no idea if they even *are* selling the picture.

Is there someone else we can talk to?
No. This is a lone individual.

Can we explain it in a better way, a different approach, or understand the persons reason for not aggreeing and find a way to satisfy that (ie compensate for used film maybe).
Assume they're being completely unreasonable and refusing to communicate at all. What is a reasonable reaction on your part?

[pouchedfox.livejournal.com]

if this is at a con, theres policies about that. If they are hanging out on private property, let the property owner know your not happy that someone is taking pictures. See if theres something you can do for them. Talk to them find out about them and what they are doing, the more information you have, the more possibilities are available. If they really are just posting it on a personal blog, it might not be worth worrying about vs the local newspaper.

[pouchedfox.livejournal.com]

sometimes just talking to people and trying to connect with them can change their attitude. (I try to use psychology/diplomacy)

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Communication is absolutely vital in these situations.

[pouchedfox.livejournal.com]

seconded. I prefer diplomacy, and then non-aggressive solutions. I just left that question blank because I didnt like he choices. Legal action really depends on the context and will - big companies take people to court all the time with not intention to win, court rulings get appealed, reversed, spirit of the law interpreted, all the time.