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.

[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.

[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....

[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.

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.