You have to get permission to share yourself? So, they make you sign a contract that says you can't talk about yourself until now? I guess that is normal. Great photo for sure.
You have to get permission to share yourself? So, they make you sign a contract that says you can't talk about yourself until now? I guess that is normal. Great photo for sure.
The photographer always owns the image (or the magasine etc if the photographer is working on an assigment). Of course I can talk about myself but I can’t share an imagine I first of all didn’t have, and don’t own, without a permission.
I know that is what they tell you. That might not be technically true in reality. But that is what people normally say. I guess it depends to some extent. I guess, if you agree to the terms, then ok. However, if a person randomly takes a photo of you when you are walking to a store and then they email you the picture and then says don't share it, you could still share it because you didn't sign a contract with that person. You might even try to sue that person or try to destroy the camera or whatever. So, I guess it depends on the details.
Pictures taken on a public place of you, are owned by the photographer. For example, paparazzi pics of a celeb. Quite a few celebs have been sued because of sharing those images and had to pay a hefty sum for it.
The courts are often wrong. The judges are corrupt. That is another problem. The legal world is full of bad stuff. If something happens in the public town square, so to speak, then copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc, should not be warranted the ability to override that. Copyright and other things are dangerous depending on the government who might selectively enforce the interpretation of how they might apply. People get sued unfairly all of the time. That is bad. Too many cases are too subjective. Also, another thing to consider is Fair Use. Also, on top of that, if they publish the photo and you share that, then they should not be allowed to sue you. See, if you link to them and say that they took the photo, then you then in fact give them the credit. So, when they go after people for sharing what is already public, that is published, that is potentially violating your ability to talk about it. Also, free publicity helps them. Technically, they should pay a person to share a photo. So, if the photo is already published, and if somebody shared that photo with other people, then that is free advertisement. So, it is dumb for them to sue the advertiser when they should in fact be paying them for marketing. Of course, some people disagree with what I am saying. I know that. But I am saying that ads are valuable. That is why there are commercials on YouTube. When you share somebody's work, you are in fact helping them. They owe you. They really do owe you money. But sometimes, they can sue people and get money from the same people that they should be paying. That is bad. Yes, it happens. But it should not happen. The courts should wake up. Those judges should be removed for being too unfair and too blind to how things work.
You can't pay bills with publicity. Artists, of any kind, should not work for free. You can't pay your rent by someone tagging you on instagram.