Cute mug shot- Does she have a case.
Mar 4, 2014 16:02:23 #
MDI Mainer wrote:
This does not appear to be a copyright issue at al... (show quote)
This mug shot was taken by the police when she was arrested for drunk driving.
Mar 4, 2014 18:43:18 #
Well, that's not what the article said (described it as an "ad of a beautiful females fake mugshot fake mugshot"), but I have no knowledge of the particulars of this case.
Country's Mama wrote:
This mug shot was taken by the police when she was arrested for drunk driving.
Mar 4, 2014 19:09:04 #
MDI Mainer wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/meagan-simmons-attractive_n_3045604.htmlWell, that's not what the article said (described it as an "ad of a beautiful females fake mugshot fake mugshot"), but I have no knowledge of the particulars of this case.
Mar 4, 2014 19:15:39 #
OK, thanks for the additional info.
Country's Mama wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/meagan-simmons-attractive_n_3045604.html
Mar 5, 2014 10:12:58 #
Funny I was listening to a talk radio show yesterday and they brought up photography copyrights. The question was if I hand my camera to someone to take my picture who owns the copyrights? Their answer was the person taking the photo owns the copyright, even if they use your camera! I have not verified this but throwing it in here for more conversation.
Mar 5, 2014 10:36:50 #
The issue here is: when does an individual lose control of their own image for commercial purposes? I just dont believe that the image existing in a public record empowers any and all to use that image for profit. While federal mug shots are in the public domain, I think that only means you can get a copy. Laws protecting individual privacy rights are not, I believe, superseded by the copyright being in the public domain. They are two separate issues.
Mar 5, 2014 10:47:50 #
dsmeltz wrote:
The issue here is: when does an individual lose control of their own image for commercial purposes? I just dont believe that the image existing in a public record empowers any and all to use that image for profit. While federal mug shots are in the public domain, I think that only means you can get a copy. Laws protecting individual privacy rights are not, I believe, superseded by the copyright being in the public domain. They are two separate issues.
I think this is correct. There are two issues: First who owns the copyright? The photographer or his employer or it is public with no copyright claim being made.
Second: Who controls commercial exploitation of the likeness? There it is probably the subject.
So, if a newspaper or website publishes a mug shot it's a public image and the subject has no claim. If the mugshot is used in advertising, the subject may well have a claim.
Somebody referred to her as Miss Demeanor. I thought that was clever for several reasons.
Mar 5, 2014 10:54:06 #
Mar 5, 2014 11:26:52 #
Country's Mama wrote:
I ran across this article and thought it might create an interesting discussion.
Though it doesn't state who took the photo in this article in others it says it was a mug shot, so I assume it was taken by the police and is public record.
Now the question. Are they using this photo illegally. Who owns the copy right? She didn't take the picture, so does she have a case.
http://www.examiner.com/article/attractive-convict-lawsuit-florida-woman-sues-for-hot-mugshot-photo-overuse?cid=rss
Though it doesn't state who took the photo in this article in others it says it was a mug shot, so I assume it was taken by the police and is public record.
Now the question. Are they using this photo illegally. Who owns the copy right? She didn't take the picture, so does she have a case.
http://www.examiner.com/article/attractive-convict-lawsuit-florida-woman-sues-for-hot-mugshot-photo-overuse?cid=rss
Personally I think her attractiveness is overstated if that is the picture in question. From what I have read I would venture to say that she has no complaint in this dig fight.
Mar 5, 2014 13:28:53 #
Current news provides the legal answer: The now famous Twitter pic taken at the Oscars is the property of Bradley Cooper who snapped the shot. It doesn't belong to Ellen whose phone was used nor any of the celebrities in the image (except Cooper).
Mar 5, 2014 15:18:04 #
dickwilber
Loc: Indiana (currently)
LPigott wrote:
Current news provides the legal answer: The now famous Twitter pic taken at the Oscars is the property of Bradley Cooper who snapped the shot. It doesn't belong to Ellen whose phone was used nor any of the celebrities in the image (except Cooper).
Correct! But Mr. Cooper does not have the right to use that photo in an advertisement without the permission of all identifiable persons in that photo. Reproduction as a news item falls under the First Amendment.
Mar 5, 2014 16:22:25 #
Here is an hour long video with a copyright attorney which is very informative and worth the time to listen.
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/08/video-interview-copyright-registration-infringement-information/
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/08/video-interview-copyright-registration-infringement-information/
Mar 6, 2014 10:00:14 #
Country's Mama wrote:
I ran across this article and thought it might create an interesting discussion.
Though it doesn't state who took the photo in this article in others it says it was a mug shot, so I assume it was taken by the police and is public record.
Now the question. Are they using this photo illegally. Who owns the copy right? She didn't take the picture, so does she have a case.
http://www.examiner.com/article/attractive-convict-lawsuit-florida-woman-sues-for-hot-mugshot-photo-overuse?cid=rss
Though it doesn't state who took the photo in this article in others it says it was a mug shot, so I assume it was taken by the police and is public record.
Now the question. Are they using this photo illegally. Who owns the copy right? She didn't take the picture, so does she have a case.
http://www.examiner.com/article/attractive-convict-lawsuit-florida-woman-sues-for-hot-mugshot-photo-overuse?cid=rss
Without reading any other responses, since arrest filings are public record, I would assume any mug shots would be too. I don't think she has a case, but, it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Mar 6, 2014 12:06:11 #
UP-2-IT wrote:
Personally I think her attractiveness is overstated if that is the picture in question. From what I have read I would venture to say that she has no complaint in this dig fight.
You're right! And less attractive people should get less compensation!!
Oh, wait. Does that mean, I would have to pay someone if they misappropriated my face?
Mar 6, 2014 17:04:55 #
Ralloh wrote:
Without reading any other responses, since arrest filings are public record, I would assume any mug shots would be too. I don't think she has a case, but, it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
I will try and keep track of what happens.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.