Consent to take the picture isn’t needed (in the US, other jurisdictions vary). Ownership of the image goes with the creator, just like the ownership of any fixed representation in other formats (painting, statue, etc).
What someone can do with that image is regulated by other laws which may restrict how it can be monetized, but ownership by the creator precludes others from using it without permission. You, as the subject, have some rights related to how the image is used by others, but you yourself have no special rights to the image.
No, that’s not what has been noted. As I and a couple of other people have made clear in this thread, it’s the particular purpose for which the image will be used that determines whether your permission is required.
If the photographer wanted to sell the image for commercial use, in which your likeness would be used to advertise, promote, or endorse a particular product or service or organization, they would most likely need a release signed by you and anyone else in the picture.
If the photographer wanted to sell the picture to a newspaper, for the purposes of illustrating a news story or some other informational piece, they could do that without your consent. And the definition of informational content is actually quite broad, applying not only to traditional media like newspapers and magazines, but to blogs or basically any other form of first-amendment protected expression that is not explicitly commercial as described in the previous paragraph.
I explained these distinctions in more detail in this post and this one.
I think my issue is being sued for using a photo someone took of me without my permission. I am the subject of the photo. I did not contract to have it taken. It seems wrong to sue me if I use it for a non-commercial purpose. Especially since the person who took the photo has put it online (See OP).
You have no special rights to your image when you are in public. No permission is needed to take a photo of you. It’s not your photo, you have no right to use it without authorization. Putting a photo online does nothing to grant anyone else the right to use the photo. Basically, you’re trying to create a right to use an image where no such right exists.
I’m curious about this. I can easily see how surveillance cameras come in under GDPR. Article two says:
This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.
A surveillance camera is a wholly or partly automated system.
But if I take a picture of people on the same street that is not wholly or partly automated. Is there some way I can treat the picture and not have it be part of a filing system, other than completely private use?
Or is there some other EU law other than GDPR that comes into play if I use it for something other than my personal holiday slide show or as a news photo?
You seem to be asking the same question over and over again.
If someone takes your picture (in the US), they can sell the picture, but they can’t use your picture to sell other products without your consent. They can’t create a mug with your picture, or use your picture in an ad for, say, cereal. You can’t do anything with the picture, without an agreement from the photographer, but you can prevent the photographer from doing certain things with your likeness.
Maybe, like in a ad for sunglasses, or mole killers, yes. But not if they get $ from news sources for using it. I snapped a picture of minor celebrity once, flashing at a awards show, sold it to a tabloid, and kept getting small checks for other tabloids, etc using it. She got nothing for my snap. I had the rights, not her.
Am I a professional photographer? Was I about to sell it for $10 million to The NY Times? Then, $10 million. Was I going to use it in a best-selling photography book? Was I just about to sell it as an NFT for $1 billion?
If nothing else, I can definitely force you to take it down.
I don’t think there’s a factual answer to your question. The owner of the photograph can definitely sue you to take down the image. If there are actual damages, or punitive damages, the owner can sue you for that amount as well.
Not necessarily. You used my property (the picture) without my permission. I don’t have to lose money to have a claim you violated my copyright. It doesn’t matter that you are the subject of the photo, the image belongs to me and you can’t use it without my permission.
I seem to recall in another thread you not being able to understand that not all arrestable offenses are actual crimes. These are some of the [shit! I can’t think of the word!] of American law. You may not like it but that’s the way it is.
Usually when someone sues they want to recover more than it cost them to sue.
Lawyers are not cheap.
But maybe it was the principle of the thing and worth a few thousand to this photographer. I dunno.
I’d submit that by the time the court rules taking down an Instagram post is pointless. It’s already been viewed about as much as it ever will be and you probably can’t claim monetary damages (or, if you can, I doubt they will cover legal costs).