Only if the images are used in slander, commercial applications, etc. - but not simply for their likeness appearing on a gallery wall.
mynameagain
mynameagain
"How is this legal?" - because it's not illegal (or, could very well not be).
...but your posting this article in response actually proves that point. By provoking you to attack the artist and his intent, pointing to the further public victimization of these women being permitted by calling it "Art", it has literally strengthened the debate over privacy. Has it not..? Do you not feel you are…
"This is illegal right?"
Maybe. Remember the Ellen Degeneres / Bradley Cooper "selfie" thing? Technically, Bradley Cooper owns the rights to the image, even though it was taken with Ellen's camera. However, in your scenario, it may fall under oral contract law; since the tacit understanding is that they would be making the image on your…
No. If she did not take the photos in question, the Copyright Law simply does not apply. That is what the site is arguing. What would be protecting the site is the fact that they would have done nothing illegal, were that the case (and slander would not apply if the photos actually are of her).
@ benjaminallover:
If the photos were taken by someone else - even with her own phone - that person owns the copyright, not her (that is actually the issue in question here, based on this article). That person could also legally compel her to delete the images from her phone / cloud storage, etc. So, in this case, she has no claim of…
Well, that - plus the fact that the site not only has not done anything illegal*, but has also (most likely) done due diligence to legally protect themselves in the terms of use that any party uploading content must agree to before uploading content.
Yeah, I've only read a few descriptions, saying some are selfies abut others would have had to have been taken by her partner - and it sounded like there was sex / blowjobbing involved in those ones (I was really just throwing in the details in my example as an "even in such a private situation as" emphasis)..
"It seems unfair that the burden is on the victim of the theft, and not on the entity profiting from it to prove the legal ownership of the image" i.e.; "it seems unfair that the burden is on the accuser, and not on the accused". You continued to argue against the burden of proof being on the accuser (claiming that it…
The absence of any model release in no way proves lack of ownership in the copyright.
Life is unfair. Putting the burden of proof on the accuser doesn't make it any easier to victimize anyone than it already is. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is easy to victimize anyone. But it's nice to know you are in favor of jailing the innocent who are unable to prove their innocence beyond…
You do have legal recourse if the images are used in such a way that requires a model release, such as commercial applications, etc. - but that recourse only applies to the use, and not to the image itself.
If she is not the owner in the copyright, then it is not an issue of theft (from her, at least).
Copyright determination is perfectly clear and simple; if you created it, you own it. If you take a photo of a person in public (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy*), correct - there is nothing they can do about it (legally). Personal rights and Copyright are two completely different things (and a…
Given that user submission - based sites typically require submitters to confirm ownership of submitted materials and contain indemnification clauses (specifically to protect the site against this exact type of thing), she would probably have to sue the party who uploaded the images, not the site itself.
Only if she was the one who took them. But you are correct in that registration is not required.
The person creating the image owns the copyright by default. Simply appearing in a photograph taken by someone else gives you no rights to ownership. None. If she owns the images, she could prove it by way of embedded metadata.