Copyright and papparazzi

JuggerNaught

JuggerNaught

Contributor
Veteran XX
How is it that paparazzi can take photos of someone like britney spears, and then sell them, but that doesnt infringe on a copyright law? If a celebrity is making their money off their music and/or likeness and someone else is using that likeness without their consent to make money, doesnt that go into copyright territory in some way?
 
if you are in public, you don't have rights to your image. It is not illegal to record even video in a public place as long as you don't use the audio.
 
there are 3 types of intellectual property rights:
patents, copyrights, and trademarks

copyrights are for printed material. things are technically automatically copyrighted as soon as they are printed/produced.

patents are for original ideas (inventions). you have to apply for a patent for your idea.

and trademarks are signs, symbols, phrases, etc. that associate a product/good with another person/brand/company/etc.

so, after having looked at that, you can see that taking a picture of someone in public really has nothing to do with intellectual property rights, being that the photo is the subject of the magazine, not the magazine itself. (e.g. if someone started naming their magazine 'britney spears magazine" or something, they'd get their asses sued off.)
 
iNVAR said:
there are 3 types of intellectual property rights:
patents, copyrights, and trademarks

copyrights are for printed material. things are technically automatically copyrighted as soon as they are printed/produced.

patents are for original ideas (inventions). you have to apply for a patent for your idea.

and trademarks are signs, symbols, phrases, etc. that associate a product/good with another person/brand/company/etc.

so, after having looked at that, you can see that taking a picture of someone in public really has nothing to do with intellectual property rights, being that the photo is the subject of the magazine, not the magazine itself. (e.g. if someone started naming their magazine 'britney spears magazine" or something, they'd get their asses sued off.)
Click to expand...

but isnt spears' or any other celebrity's likeness pretty much their trademark? I could see one or 2 pics..but if you watch any of the videos on tmz with spears in it, there are like a 100 guys with cameras taking her picture, making a shitload of money off her image, selling them to magazines and websites making a shitload of money off her image
 
Intriguing.

I think could sue a TV network for using footage of me without signing a release form.

[So] wat can celebrities dew?
 
DrSupey said:
Intriguing.

I think could sue a TV network for using footage of me without signing a release form.

[So] wat can celebrities dew?
Click to expand...

i don't fully understand this post.. but on a related note, in Aus (i don't know about the U.S or other countries), even i a public place you aren't allowed to film children without parental consent. So news programs and stuff that visit schools when funding gets awarded or something have to do release forms with parents etc if there is footage of the kids faces/or are recognisable.

But yeah once your an adult, and in public, you are open to be snapped.
 
Beren said:
i don't fully understand this post.. but on a related note, in Aus (i don't know about the U.S or other countries), even i a public place you aren't allowed to film children without parental consent. So news programs and stuff that visit schools when funding gets awarded or something have to do release forms with parents etc if there is footage of the kids faces/or are recognisable.

But yeah once your an adult, and in public, you are open to be snapped.
Click to expand...

And i could see that for the average joe, who DOESNT make their money from their face. But thats what a movie star or entertainer does. So arent the paps technically stealing from them?
 
Beren said:
i don't fully understand this post.. but on a related note, in Aus (i don't know about the U.S or other countries), even i a public place you aren't allowed to film children without parental consent. So news programs and stuff that visit schools when funding gets awarded or something have to do release forms with parents etc if there is footage of the kids faces/or are recognisable.

But yeah once your an adult, and in public, you are open to be snapped.
Click to expand...

That's where I went in my mid-morning post-migraine hazey brain before editing my post :O

Child celebs in Australia would have a lot of privacy - no photo's would be allowed without parental/guardian consent. SO they'd only get pictures from official media events.

On the bit that confused the B-man: I'm pretty sure that if I was going to be on TV, the network would have to get me to sign a release form in order to consent to the recording. It's part of that "Mr X declined to be interviewed on camera" stuff that the media outlets say on the news.
 
JuggerNaught said:
And i could see that for the average joe, who DOESNT make their money from their face. But thats what a movie star or entertainer does. So arent the paps technically stealing from them?
Click to expand...

Are you insane? so celebrities should actually have different laws then everyone else?


how is the concepts that there are no expectations of privacy in public, and that the photograph is property of the Photographer not the subject, so hard to comprehend.
 
NetStalker said:
Are you insane? so celebrities should actually have different laws then everyone else?


how is the concepts that there are no expectations of privacy in public, and that the photograph is property of the Photographer not the subject, so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Hmm...should people who make their living WITH THEIR FACES have different expectations about getting compensated over large amounts of pictures taken OF THEIR FACES? You don't think they should?

Having your picture taken isnt the same thing as having it sold...get it genius?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top