• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

photographs / internet

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

m s

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oklahoma

I vacationed on an island earlier this year with an ex-boyfriend. We photographed much of our time there. I took the majority of the photographs and also developed the film/digital cds. He lives out of state and downloaded the photos to his computer before I caught my flight home.

In the case that I should lose future contact with this person, what are my rights in keeping these photographs private and keeping them off the internet. Specifically, photographs of myself - which do not contain nudity, but nevertheless are photographs I do not want to be made public on internet social sites.
 


The Occultist

Senior Member
I would say that you are most certainly the copyright holder over the works, but what might get confusing is whether or not there was any sort of implied license granted to the recipient of the photos. A more knowledgeable poster may offer his insight, so stick around, but if this is something that is of great concern to you, you may wish to consider actually sitting down with an attorney versed in such law.
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
I agree.

I would sit down with a lawyer and send the ex a quick letter outlining your wants, wishes and legal permissions (or lack thereof).

At least this way, when the photos DO make their way to the internet, you can sue him into the ground.
 

jsmith416

Member
So the OP took all these potentially embarrassing photos of herself? She flipped the camera around or used the timer? If they are of her I would think somebody else was operating the camera.
 
Last edited:

m s

Junior Member
They are not embarassing photographs or perhaps some are, but irregardless I don't think they should be posted if I do not want them to be. I don't post any pictures of myself online, so why should anyone else post them?

We both took photos using my camera. We took photographs of each other, or used the timer to capture photos of ourselves together. It was my camera in use. I took most of the scenic pictures on the island.


So the OP took all these potentially embarrassing photos of herself? She flipped the camera around or used the timer? If they are of her I would think somebody else was operating the camera.
 

jsmith416

Member
I don't post any pictures of myself online, so why should anyone else post them?
It is a common misconception that people lock-stock-and-barrel have a right not to have their image posted online. For example it's perfectly legal to take pictures of people in public spaces and distribute them. Having said that, you generally do hold copyright to pictures you took yourself. BUT what would be your recourse? Sue him? Does he have any assets worth recovering? And how would you prove damages?

Did he gain access to the pictures without your permission? Or did you give him your camera/memory card? From your original post it seems as though he had possession for at least enough time to copy the pictures.

I took most of the scenic pictures on the island.
Then you own the copyright but why would you care about scenic pictures with no identifiable subjects? You seem most concerned about the pictures that you are in so this is irrelevant.

And FYI "irregardless" is not a real word.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Hmmm. I seem to remember an "irregardless" discussion on this forum before. :)

From Merriam-Webster Online:

'Function: adverb
Etymology: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: Circa 1912
Nonstandard: REGARDLESS
Usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention
of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remarks
about it is that 'there is no such word.' There is such a word, however. It is
still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in
edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long
way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

I agree with the others that whoever took the photographs owns the copyright in them., unless an agreement was made that signed away the photographer's rights. Contacting your ex-boyfriend about your desire to keep the photos off the internet would be your best course of action. You would need to register all of the photographs with the Copyright Office before suing for infringement over their unauthorized use, and infringement actions are expensive to pursue in court. Because of the costs involved, an infringement lawsuit is probably not worth the time and trouble involved - especially if the photos are rather benign in nature.

One slight correction to what jsmith said: It is not always legal to publish photos of people, even when the photographs were taken in a public place. It can depend on where, and for what purpose, the photos are used. Jsmith is correct, however, that the general rule is that photos can be taken in public places with no problem. Legal problems generally arise with how any photos are used.
 
Last edited:

jsmith416

Member
One slight correction to what jsmith said: It is not always legal to publish photos of people, even when the photographs were taken in a public place.
Under what circumstances would publishing a picture of a person taken in a public space be illegal? To my knowledge, TMZ has never been sued for a picture they posted of a celebrity coming out of a Starbucks without makeup.

And wikipedia says irregardless is an incorrect word.
 

m s

Junior Member
This is very interesting information. I never post my information or pictures on social networking sites or online, so I never thought that someone else rightfully could. There are no damages to recover. I just would like to take a protectionary stance. I thought that there would be a clause to protect future exploitation. I receive emails from people that have a clause stating the email cannot be forwarded or reproduced. They don't expect their friends to exploit their emails, but they add the clause to their emails anyways. I digress...

He uploaded the pictures from my SD card while I was showering. There was no need to ask permission. I had let him upload the cds we took from the film camera. We had enjoyed taking and sharing the photos from our vacation. Sure, there were some I would have preferred to delete, but the point is not the photos so much as my permission and right as to their use and publicity.


Thank you for the advice and vocabulary check!




It is a common misconception that people lock-stock-and-barrel have a right not to have their image posted online. For example it's perfectly legal to take pictures of people in public spaces and distribute them. Having said that, you generally do hold copyright to pictures you took yourself. BUT what would be your recourse? Sue him? Does he have any assets worth recovering? And how would you prove damages?

Did he gain access to the pictures without your permission? Or did you give him your camera/memory card? From your original post it seems as though he had possession for at least enough time to copy the pictures.



Then you own the copyright but why would you care about scenic pictures with no identifiable subjects? You seem most concerned about the pictures that you are in so this is irrelevant.

And FYI "irregardless" is not a real word.
 

m s

Junior Member
Fascinating! I don't know where I picked that word up in my vocabulary. I had been writing a term paper and reading dozens of speeches and books from the early 20th Century...

The beach was secluded. There was no one else around. Still, these photos are benign in nature. The issue was about the rights to their use and publicity.




Hmmm. I seem to remember an "irregardless" discussion on this forum before. :)

From Merriam-Webster Online:

'Function: adverb
Etymology: Probably blend of respective and regardless
Date: Circa 1912
Nonstandard: REGARDLESS
Usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention
of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remarks
about it is that 'there is no such word.' There is such a word, however. It is
still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in
edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long
way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

I agree with the others that whoever took the photographs owns the copyright in them., unless an agreement was made that signed away the photographer's rights. Contacting your ex-boyfriend about your desire to keep the photos off the internet would be your best course of action. You would need to register all of the photographs with the Copyright Office before suing for infringement over their unauthorized use, and infringement actions are expensive to pursue in court. Because of the costs involved, an infringement lawsuit is probably not worth the time and trouble involved - especially if the photos are rather benign in nature.

One slight correction to what jsmith said: It is not always legal to publish photos of people, even when the photographs were taken in a public place. It can depend on where, and for what purpose, the photos are used. Jsmith is correct, however, that the general rule is that photos can be taken in public places with no problem. Legal problems generally arise with how any photos are used.
 

quincy

Senior Member
First, "irregardless" is nonstandard. It is not a word that is recommended for use, although some people use it and it has been in use for many many years. It is a word. And, jsmith, Wikipedia is not a source I would rely on for anything, by the way.

Second, TMZ has been sued.

Third, celebrities have given up a certain amount of their right to privacy (although not all of it). They are considered "newsworthy" and, therefore, their photos can be taken and published legally as news. What celebrities have instead of the privacy that most of us come to expect is a right to "publicity" - a right that is far greater than one us mere mortals have (although we, too, have a certain right to control the use of our image for advertising purposes).

A celebrity's image is worth a lot. They cash in on their celebrity through the sale of their image to advertisers, who are willing to pay enormous sums for a celebrity endorsement of a product or service, or they cash in on their celebrity through the use of their own image when developing and selling their own product lines (perfumes, clothing lines, etc). Tiger Woods did not get wealthy only from playing golf, in other words. He got wealthy from endorsements. You cannot take a celebrity's photo and use it on tee-shirts you create for sale without risking a lawsuit.

TMZ cannot use the photos they take for advertising purposes. They can, however, use the photos they take for a news purpose and for commentary. But TMZ, and Star and In Touch and Entertainment Tonight and others like them, can also be held liable for invading the privacy of celebrities if they use telephoto lenses to capture a celebrity inside a residence or if they must violate another law (like trespass) in order to take a photo. Many of these magazines and celebrity news programs have been sued for invasion of privacy and defamation in the past over their uses of photos, and also over phony stories created and published.

Finally, photos taken in public are generally, as I said, okay to take. However, regardless of where a photo is taken, you cannot use an image of an individual for advertising purposes without permission; you cannot use a photo of an individual to illustrate a story if the story puts that individual in a false light; you cannot defame a person through the use of a photo with text or through its placement (ie. in a porn magazine); and, in some cases, even when in a public place, people have a certain expectation of privacy that can be invaded by a photographer (skirts blown up by sidewalk grates or underskirt photos can lead to major legal problems for a photographer should these photos be published - or even if the negatives are taken in for printing).

In addition, photos taken in a public place of trademarks or copyrighted items cannot always be published without risking a lawsuit from a trademark or copyright holder.

There are other exceptions to taking photos in public, as well. Again, the problems more often arise with the publication of the photos and not the taking of them, but taking them can also cause problems if you are unaware of the laws that govern photography.

When in doubt as to whether your use of a photo is a legal one, it helps to have an attorney review it. Certainly contact an attorney before making any commercial use of a photo that pictures an identifiable person or when using trademarks or copyrighted elements in a photo for sale.

As for "disclaimers" (on emails or on websites or anywhere else, for that matter), they do not prevent someone from forwarding an email on to others and they do not prevent lawsuits. The most a disclaimer can do is mitigate damages should a lawsuit arise for some reason over what has been published.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top