Hacker News Reader

Comment by collyw | Hacker News Reader

I haven't too much sympathy for photographers as a group in general, as they regularly take my picture without asking.

Its usually (in my opinion) the subject of the photograph that makes it interesting, not the style that a photographer has put on it. I always find it a bit strange that copyright seems to protect the photographers rights, while ignoring the subject.

View on HN

Copyright is concerned with the creator of a work. The photographer created a photograph by setting up the camera and pressing the button.

That said, the smart photographer will obtain a license from the model (a 'model release') to distribute photos with the model's likeness. If you find photos of yourself being reproduced when you gave no permission, you may indeed have a legal beef with the photographer ... just not under copyright law.

My fashion is a work of art, of which the photographer is illegally reproducing a visual copy.

Are you attempting to suggest that how you've dressed is deserving of copyright protection? You'll need to argue that before a judge. I'd bet that you'll have to show that much of your own creations (of clothing or jewelry) are involved, conscious creative effort summoned in deciding what pieces complement others to make the impression you are striving for, etc. If you suggest that making a copyrightable ensemble out of off-the-shelf clothing is permissible, then Levi's gets to claim similar copyright on their "works of art" and no one can ever photograph anyone else wearing them without permission of Levi's. It is my opinion that unless you've done what I mention above (created the parts yourself, etc) then your choice of dress today has no copyright protection.

We can discuss our opinions on the finer details of the ambiguities of copyright until the universe collapses in on itself and it's pointless until you take your case to the courts and get a definitive legal ruling.

The point I'm trying to make is that copyright rules are severely inconsistent. It serves no other purpose than to give people new tools to oppress eachother within the legal system. You know there's a problem when the gray area is so large it requires courts to make decisions like what art is "transformative" and what is not. That is not a court's decision, but because we have things like copyright infringment of media, it is.

Other industries could follow the fashion industry's lead and drop copyright infringment altogether. Somehow they manage survive and innovate without it using just social pressures, not legal pressures.

Involving the courts is by design. Because Congress decided to create this right, and because it's messy, and because creating rules around "messy" is a Hard Problem ... let's involve the courts! As evidence that this was intentional, see "fair use" - no one thinks they're allowed to make a fair use decision without filing a lawsuit.

Point: I get why the courts are involved. But I'm right there with you that the whole system gets used as an oppressive instrument.

Its usually (in my opinion) the subject of the photograph that makes it interesting, not the style that a photographer has put on it.

Have you seen this guy's shots? I've tried taking pictures of ants and other insects and it takes lots of luck or lots of shots that you throw out to get something even vaguely decent. Even then, nothing I've ever done looks anywhere near as good as the stuff this guy was pointing to as stolen. (And some of those shots likely required getting up close to insects in uncomfortable positions, all while trying to not interfere with the light or scare the buggers off)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com