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

[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.