▲ 44 points
back
17 comments
I feel compelled to point out that his tonsils are not actually visible in the photo.
Glad to know I am not the only one. I spent ages trying to find those damn tonsils.
Maybe he meant lingual tonsils (rather than palatine)
It's disturbing how quickly you can be drawn into a national narrative that you really have nothing at all to do with.
In some way, it's a bit strange that someone can take a picture of you and then -sell- it.
Given that you can not take a picture of a statue and sell the picture, or even publish it, it's even more strange.
Maybe some parents could try to claim copyright on the derivative work? (Ö_Ö)
I've heard of one case where a photographer took a photo of a married couple in a restaurant, got a release from them, and used it in some advertisement. Later the photo was sold, and sold again, and eventually ended up in an anti-prostitution advertisement. IIRC the couple sued and the ad was removed, and they may have got damages.
There's also a case where a woman sued Getty images (and won) after her photo showed up in an HIV advertisement. http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/woman-sues-getty-after-photo-ap...
In those cases, the photos were a major component of the advertisement, and it was strongly implied the people in the photos were associated with prostitution and HIV. The picture in this article is such a generic looking stock graduation photo it might be hard to prove it's implying anything in particular about the subjects.
And it was taken in a public place, so there's no expectation to privacy.
He could try suing, but it probably wouldn't be worth it. Probably best to laugh it off and be happy he got an article out of it.
I don't see in the article that she won but this is different. She was posing for a photographer with the understanding it was to be used for an ad but they never got a release. It doesn't matter she was in a public place. The problem lies in that she was hired for one thing and it was used for another.
In some countries it's not allowed. In others, it depends on the usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
I'm a bit surprised that in mentioning law, photography, and distribution he didn't mention whether or not he was asked to sign a release, or if there was signage implying the consent for photography.
Colleges will have you agree that pictures may be taken of you on campus and you don't have rights to stop them (at least mine did). So if they allowed the photographer on campus, it's fair game.
I can see why that picture is popular: it is gender-neutral: it has a black female, an Asian female and a white male in the foreground. And it is 'real'.
If you want to make a story about anything university / student debt related, and want to suggest that this is not only a white-rich people problem, this photo fits the bill.
Interesting... I would have assumed a model release would be required to protect the publisher from civil liability. There's no mention of this, so I assume the photographer didn't obtain one.
Maybe that's not required because none of the uses imply the subject is endorsing whatever product/view-point the various articles are promoting?
Journalism pieces do not require model release. The "questionable student loan repayment services" that used the image probably didn't pay Reuters and probably aren't using the photo legally.
To my knowledge, Reuters keeps track of which of it's library pictures have a release. They will allow ones without release for editorial/journalist content only.
Activity in public does not require a release. Search for "street photography" or read one of these:
http://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-l...
http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Photographers-N-10515...
The first link indicates that the release isn't required to take the photo or use it in an editorial or educational context, but that one might be required to publish the photo commercially (which was done in the original link).
err I don't see, what's wrong with his mouth?