Interesting example. Had he been able to assert ownership of it, I wonder if the full story would have changed people’s minds about what happened?
Sure, but, this is just straight copyright law. The photographer can sue Dua Lipa if she markets their photos in the same way Dua Lipa can sue the photographer if they market her recordings. None of this seems remotely controversial.
“Does Copyright Law Exist? The Answer May Surprise You!”
I never said scumbags don’t have rights. My point was that the way the paparazzi used those rights only contributes to their well-earned reputation as sleazy parasites.
Not being a copyright maximalist, I also think there’s a legitimate fair-use case to be made when the celebrity subject isn’t looking for direct material gain from posting the photo (taken on the basis of their fame) and properly credits the photographer and/or agency/bureau.
Always give them a tip of some kind, then it’s a work for hire. /s
OT but Damn, man, that picture. A thousand stuntmen dying a thousand special effects enhanced deaths can’t match that. It’s the sort of thing that I wonder if it has the same impact these days. Growing up a kid in the states in the 70s, you just didn’t see imagery of that kind of real violence that much. Really hits me hard every time, and I sure wasn’t expecting to see it today in a thread about celebrity paparazzi and copyright. (eta: not meant as a criticism, you and Les_Pane pose interesting ideas with that pic)
I briefly taught a class on copyright and this was one of the topics that the students had the most difficulty accepting. It just seems so fundamentally weird and unfair to people that someone can take a pic of you and you have no copyright interest in that pic and they can actually sue you for copying it.
There is actually video of it, as well. Horrible, and I won’t link it here.
Even if the subject could assert copyright couldn’t fair use likely apply for news organizations?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.