She doesn't own photos taken of her unless the copyright holder signs ownership over to her.

It depends what's in the release, but generally I use model releases to have permission for those photos to be used in a way that would make it seem like they're promoting something – ie, adverts. I can't licence a picture of a model to a company to use in their advert without a model release allowing it. But, if I…

Ha, glad to be of service! Jobs where you create something for money are weird with the whole "ownership" thing.

It's tricky – it depends on your contract, really. I'm both employed by one company and also freelance for lots of other clients, so I have both situations going on all the time.

Yeah, technically it should be the copyright holder who issues the takedown… but I bet Lawrence's lawyers will figure it out in this case. (On the whole, I'm a MASSIVE fan of copyright being held by the photographer and not the subject, but I'm biased of course.)

The stolen photos will be taken away – the takedown notice will force the site/their ISP to remove them. (The tricky thing is that the takedown notice is supposed to be issued by the copyright holder, which isn't Lawrence unless she used the timer. The site's just delaying to get attention, I'd think – they know…

The site would be forced to by the ISP, I'd think.

I'm generally a massive fan of copyright, because I'm a photographer and I like to own my work (I've never assigned copyright to anyone else, and have no plans to unless they pay me much, much more money than anyone's ever wanted to pay me). But the laws against theft are presumably totally applicable here!

Yeah, it's immoral of the site and the uploader… but the copyright holder can just issue the takedown notice and it should be sorted, I'd think?

On the plus side, women are allowed to own their own photos! (I realise that's a small plus for women in front of the camera, but it's a big plus for me on the other side.) Maybe it's just a 90% appalling world? Hopefully the thieves will be caught and prosecuted… then we'll be up to 91%, perhaps.

They *were* given to the site to display, though. The person uploading it to the site presumably said they were the copyright holder, so they have the right to share it – the site can then say "We're allowed to have it on our site because the owner says so." (Obviously we all know that the person isn't actually the…

Nah, if someone takes a picture on my phone then they're the copyright holder – it's in my account, and it might be a picture of me, but I have no rights over it at all.

Nah, the site probably has some box to tick when you upload/provide files, whereby you state that you own the copyright to those files and give them permission to display them. (Of course everyone knows that that person's lying, and *isn't* the copyright holder… but that's why DCMA takedown notices exist, and why I…

The person who provided/uploaded them probably had to tick a box saying that he or she is the copyright holder.

The photographer owns copyright unless they've signed it over to someone else – a model release is just to give permission for certain types of usage. Generally the person in the photo doesn't own the picture at all.

Yes – a picture you take belongs to you (unless you've signed your copyright away) regardless of what or who is in it.

Yes! I usually figure that knowing what half the ingredients are is good enough. (Actually, anything that includes onions is usually ordered by default, even if I have no idea what else is in it.)

I spend half my time recklessly ordering mystery things I don't understand to find out if I like them, and the other half asking what stuff is to learn new words. I find both fun!

Exactly. I can't expect better from the Telegraph.

Me too. I look ruuuuuubbish, but feel powerful.