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

[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.