But the poster actually used the original picture as the basis for the image. He admitted that he took the AP photo and changed the style of it. Actually using another person’s image is different from just looking at their image and attempting to create something that looks similar using your own skills. Copyright draws a clear distinction between those two things. If the artist had been able to get access to Barack Obama, and had asked him to pose with his head in an identical position to the original photo, and then had taken a picture himself and used that photo as the basis of his poster, he would have been fine, even if it produced a photo almost indistinguishable from the one he actually created.
As I said, you can sue over anything. An analysis of how this impacts our understanding of copyright relies on an actual analysis of each particular case. The Dr. Seuss case that I know of involved a Star Trek parody which, as this New York Times story notes, “replicated broad swaths of the Dr. Seuss original, including small details of the illustrations.”
None of this is the same as the previous examples you gave, such as taking your own picture of the Manhattan skyline that happens to contain the same unusual elements as a picture that was previously taken by someone else. Copyright involves actually copying the original in some manner or another, not just copying the location or the style or the particular vantage point
Nope. Wrong. Bzzt. Incorrect - at least in terms of copyright and legal issues.
The art world might ridicule you for plagiarism or unoriginality, but there would be no copyright claim based on style alone. If I used your painting style to also directly copy an actual painting by you, that would be different. But you have no copyright claim over your style of brush strokes or color palette.
Are you asking a question of moral principle, or a question of law?
In terms of moral principle, maybe you can argue that you have a moral right to use, in whatever manner you see fit, photographs in which you appear. I take no position on that.
But in legal terms, the reason you might get sued is that copyright is something that applies to creators and their creations, not to the people who happen to be represented in their works. You, as the subject of someone else’s photo, are not the creator of the image, and did not use your artistic or technical skills and imagination to create the image. It was the photographer who was the creator of the photo, so it’s the photographer who gets to claim copyright in the image.
The aim of copyright is to protect people’s creations from unauthorized copying. If you post a photograph taken by someone else, without their permission, that is unauthorized copying. And it doesn’t matter if the picture is of you, a building, an apple, or whatever. In terms of copyright law, the actual subject matter of a visual image is basically irrelevant; the key question is who created it, and when (the latter being important for copyright expiry questions).
Because it’s not your picture. It is literally pretty much as simple as that.
I will add, by the way, that copyright law does not require payment in order for the copyright holder to allow reproduction. You could always just contact the photographer and say, “Hey, you took this picture of me yesterday. Do you mind if I repost it on my social media?” I’ve known a few pro and semi-pro photographers in my life, and most of them would be happy to allow this, unless they were otherwise prevent because someone else had hired them to create the photo (and might therefore own copyright - “Work’ for hire” is one area where the person who creates the image might not actually be the copyright holder).
To be honest, I’m not especially interest in philosophical questions of “should.”
What I’ve been attempting to discuss in this thread is the way that copyright law actually works. Maybe you should (in some abstract sense) be able to use the photo, but copyright law as it currently stands does not give you that right, and gives the copyright holder a cause of action against you if you do reproduce the image without permission.
I think the way it works has been well established and I am not arguing against that.
I think the philosophical/ethical question is far more interesting.
Why should you be allowed to profit off of my likeness with a picture I never asked you to take yet sue if I use that picture of myself and I didn’t profit from it? (circles back to the OP)
I will note, following from my longer posts above, that under European law, your “should be the law” is the law.
Well, with certain exceptions. If you’re in line at Starbucks, the business can photograph you for security purposes, as long as they have clearly posted signage indicating their practice. (But they also need procedures for keeping these recordings secure, they can’t keep them forever, they have to show you their records if you ask, and so on.) If you’re a public official, there may be some journalistic value in taking your picture in some specific scenario (say you’re buying your coffee with a government credit card, or you’re in the coffee shop during a time when you’re supposed to be somewhere else, or you’re in the company of a known ne’er-do-well, or something).
But if you’re a professional photographer, and you’re taking “local color” snaps for your portfolio or to sell as stock photography or something, you can’t just shoot any random person in public, the way you can in the U.S.
Not to me. You weren’t involved in creating the photo, you were just going about your day. They own the photo, not you, because you weren’t involved in creating it.
The photographer makes good photos. A random snapshot of someone is newsworthy only if the subject is newsworthy. Composition, balance, placement of subject, etc. make for a good photo, and you had nothing to do with that. Selling the photo to a news organization wouldn’t require your permission nor any payment to you. Using the photo for commerce would. Either way, the person who took the photo was the one who used their skills and expertise to create the image.
They’re not suing you for using your likeness - you are free to take an identical photo yourself and use it however you see fit.
By giving the photographer the rights. Same as the rights given to an author who rights a story about you, or a sculptor who makes a statue of you, or a painter who paints a portrait.