This paper examines the ethics and legal foundations of image copyright within the broader context of intellectual property law. It argues that photographs represent real investments of time and skill, and that unauthorized use — whether for personal or commercial gain — constitutes a form of theft regardless of whether the original is physically harmed. The paper explores related issues including the unauthorized use of celebrity likenesses, concert photography bans, the paparazzi industry, and the role of stock photography agencies. Drawing on the "Golden Rule" principle, it concludes that intellectual property protections for photographs are both legally justified and ethically necessary.
Intellectual property laws are the subject of much debate. Some people feel that the ability to use another person's photo or likeness without payment or other remuneration should be allowed and free, while the law itself largely prohibits such practice unless uninhibited usage is granted in advance. As with most things, there is a middle ground between the two positions that could and should be sought — but that middle ground will favor intellectual property proponents far more than opponents. While critics of intellectual property law have valid concerns to some degree, there is a clear need for such protections, and the following analysis offers specific examples of why that must remain the case.
A major linchpin of the argument for the free and unrestricted use of photos by people other than those who are authorized or who took the picture is that copying a photo from an online source does not "hurt" the person who took it, because a copy can be made without damaging the original. Much the same argument is made in other areas of intellectual property law, such as with software, music, video, movies, and television shows. However, the general counterargument is that there is money and time invested in the creation and publication of those works, and the people who created them have a right to profit from those images, videos, and programs.
This analysis sides with the latter position. It takes a great deal of time and skill to capture the right photographs. For someone else to simply take those images without compensation is wrong. For that same person to use them for their own marketing and advertising is even worse, because someone did the work to take the pictures and is not being paid for their use (Sprigman, 2015).
Another reason photographs should not be used without compensation and permission is that pictures commonly include people, and the use of those likenesses cannot and should not be exploited without limit by anyone who happens to come across them. Beyond that, contracts are often in place — put there by the individuals being photographed or their representatives — specifically to limit how those pictures may be used. Taylor Swift, for example, attracted considerable attention for the contracts her team put in place regarding her images, though the practice is fairly common in the entertainment industry (Kenneally, 2015).
"Examines no-photo policies and smartphone-era enforcement"
"Critiques paparazzi behavior and privacy violations"
"Defends stock photography industry and supply-demand logic"
Shu, L. (2013). 7 musicians who want you to put away the camera (or they'll do it for you). Digital Trends. Retrieved 8 September 2015, from http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/7-musicians-who-would-like-you-to-put-away-the-camera-or-else-theyll-do-it-for-you/
Sprigman, K. (2015). Freakonomics — how much do music and movie piracy really hurt the U.S. economy? Freakonomics.com. Retrieved 8 September 2015, from
Us Weekly. (2015). Celebrity news, celebrity gossip and pictures from UsMagazine.com — Us Weekly. usmagazine.com. Retrieved 8 September 2015, from http://www.usmagazine.com/
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.