Photographer sues Bruno Mars for posting childhood photo of himself on Instagram

@Alan - I mean that he was exploited when he was a child. I doubt he had the chance or was ever advised that he could restrict respresentations of his likeness.

I have no idea if he was exploited as a child. How has his likenness been used in a way he disapproves? Was this photo used in some way when he was young that caused him harm? I have many pictures of kids at swim meets, soccer and other activities used to show the amenities at real estate properties. Nobody complained that the children are being exploited by simply recording the activities they do there. They all want to be in the photos and the parents are happy too.

If a newspaper covers a Little League baseball game, are they exploiting the children?

@AlanG - those are good examples and I don't know how it all works legally. But if a little league guy becomes famous and decides to limit/protect reproduction of his likeness, can that extend backward to his childhood?

Of course it cannot extend backwards. If the photographer has a "minor" release signed by a parent or guardian the photos can be used for advertising without payment to the subject... depending on what is stipulated in any contract/release. (E.g I have hired "professional" child models for limited use ads.) Without a release/contact the photographer cannot license the photo for advertising without risking a law suit. A release can be negotiated at any time. Any other use is fine.

BTW do you think Muhammad Ali tried to limit the non-advertising use of his images? These people are publicity hounds. Under the law public figures have fewer rights to privacy not more.

mfinley - law doesn't equal right. holy f, do you take images of children and collect them in a book? very very very concerned about you. if a person can't own the rights to reproduction of their own likeness, something is seriously wrong with the laws.

Laws are how our society functions, if you don't like them you can work to change them. But this it's a matter of you liking them or not its a matter of you not knowing what they are. Educate yourself to the law and educate yourself to when you do and don't own your likeness and you'll probably enlighten yourself to the point that it all makes sense. Until then all you want to function by is your 'feelings'.

You're likely a liberal based on your sense of how 'feelings' are all that matter. So how would you feel if you took pictures of your family at a picnic and posted them on your facebook page, then Donald Trump used your family pictures in his 2020 election campaign? You'd sh*t yourself and cry a river. But the copyright laws would protect you and deny him the right to use them. Then they copyright laws would be okay in your book because your feelings weren't hurt anymore. The laws work both ways, emotions have no bearing.

@mfinley - so I gather you'd be okay if Walmart came in and plowed up your yard and demolished your house all in the name of imminent domain? It's completely legal. Educate yourself on this. I'm scheduling the demo of your place as we speak.

As for the family photos example - you're kind of making my point for me. You know that, right?

So yes, I know the law you idiot. This isn't about "liberal feelings" - love the political dig. You have no idea about my ideology.

What I'm saying here is that while laws allow someone to own and control images of the likeness of another, I don't think it should be that way. Especially when it comes to minors.

Nice, make your case on a misspelling. Now you're off on the whole touchy feely thing. Geez. It's real simple. It's called a discussion. Ever heard of that? Not interested in discussing? Then go take your dump somewhere else.

"A child has been exploited"... nice 'child'

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/09/b9/d0/09b9d04a84480abf8f2791aca1695c78--pet-birds-angry-birds.jpg

@mfinley - are you still flailing around like the armless/legless knight in Monty Python?

AlanG - so if Bruno Mars or his family did not pay her for the pic/session, then she just took it for free, but now she posted it without Bruno's permission - or did he sign a release? One way or another, someone paid someone - or is going to pay someone.

I have no idea what you mean by "One way or another, someone paid someone - or is going to pay someone."

It would not matter if Mars' family paid the photographer anything or not if they did not also receive a license allowing for the commercial usage of the photo that is in question.

Bruno Mars is not suing the photographer over her right to use his image as she has used it. Nor can he.

The photographer is suing Bruno Mars over his COMMERCIAL usage of her photograph of him without compensation. It seems she is entitled to do that and she will either drop the case, settle out of court, or litigate the matter.

Thia is a pretty simple matter that all should understand. The various theories and opinions are mostly uninformed useless fluff.

If you have any interest in working in the photography field, you have an obligation to the profession to educate yourself about copyright, usage and good business practices.

@balios - thanks, I confess i don't know much about this. But in my mind, this was a child and I'm trying to figure out how she had the right to photograph him in the first place.

Why do you think that photographers do not have the right to photograph children?

Here are historical photos of children:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&biw=1325&bih=915&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=tKchWpm5DYOzggeTsLDwCg&q=historical+photographs+of+children&oq=historical+photographs+of+children&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10529.12759.0.13489.11.11.0.0.0.0.80.655.11.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.148...0i13k1j0i13i5i30k1.0.3QHm9Yy2EHU

@Alan - I guess I didn't mean the right to make the image so much as hold it commercially without the parent's permission or sue the actual person over an image of himself as a child if he didn't commission or consent to the image while an adult. I'm not sure what I mean, this just seems wrong.

Journalistic images are one thing - like that poor girl who was burned in Vietnam. And I Love that one of the boy with the banjo and the dog sitting up - fantastic. Thanks for the link - I'm going to have these up on my screen for a while now!

@Alan - I thought artists could restrict and own their likeness. No?

I think that Bruno Mars should sue the photographer. She has published a photograph of him without his consent.

How does a childhood photo of Bruno Mars belong to someone else? That's just wrong.

Exactly. Why post the image if not as an advertisement of her services and her access to valuable people?

"when the use is journalistic or editorial, is completely legal". I agree with you there, but I am of the opinion that 'posting it' on Instagram is neither journalistic or editorial. I do not need to educate myself, I leave that to Catherine McGann. She clearly needs to learn something about common decency.
"Many of the comments in this discussion seem to be accusing her of profiteering, or of making a money grab because Mars in famous. Well, yes, but isn't that precisely the point of being a professional photographer? "
No it is not, it makes you a profeteer and it has nothing to do with art. Art is not about making money, art is about sharing. Really, copyright should be abolished.

Hmmm... What part of "here in Europe" did you find hard to grasp, mate? And why do you think you're the only one with knowledge on the matter?
This is a mere snapshot of a child on the back seat of a car. There's not a hint of personal creation in it. The fact that it's black and white doesn't certainly make it original. This is what the Italian IP law designates a "simple photograph" ("mere photograph" in Spain). It would be protected under neighbouring rights, but being a portrait, the depicted person has the right to use it without the photographer's consent. The latter might get a monetary compensation, but only if the photo is used with commercial purposes.
In the US, it is protected under the US Copyright Act, though not as an artwork.
You're not the only person who knows about copyright law. Live with it. And this is more about ethics than law. It's about an opportunistic move from someone who's seen a chance to make a lot of money.

By your definition only you could judge when a photo can be copyrighted. If I spill some coffee on a napkin and my cell phone accidentally takes a picture of it while I am picking it up, it is still my copyrighted property.

Read about how the Berne convention applies to Europe for photos created in the US

AlanG, that's crazy talk. Try to make sense next time. What you wrote doesn't correlate to my comments at all.

Isn't that the crux of the issue though, Arastoo? If she is posting it on Instagram, she is saying that Instagram is a non-commercial space for images.

Yet when he posts it on Instagram, she is suing for the commercial gains associated with that image.

How can she have it both ways?

She can sue him for illegal copyright infringement, but it effectively amounts to a cease & desist order since her own actions suggest that his use of the image constitutes editorial rather than commercial usage. I don't see how there can be damages associated with it.

My understanding is that if there is no expectation of privacy, a photo could be licensed for editorial uses without a model release.

I don't see how celebrities have more rights to control an image of themselves than an ordinary citizen. How does a court define "celebrity?" Surely there is a lot of grey area there.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Acidic, I didn't say it is.
But look at the petapixel comments for instance where all the kitchentable lawyers are saying the photographer has no case if there isn't a modelrelease.
I was talking more hypothetically, if you take streetphotography picture, would you need a modelrelease when you intend to use it commercially. Well, the link I gave says no, but you still better have one.

Yeah I did get from that link that it differs per (USA) state. It will differ per country here over in Europa too.
Photo copyright on the interwebs is gone wrong. There is no way you can protect a picture and there is nobody but the photographers and a few creatives that see a value in a photo anymore.

My kids are too young to get money from their instagram posts. But I'm always photographing them, now I have a great plan for my future income Thanks for the tip!

So does this mean that the Bruno' posting of the photo is covered by Instagram's license?

If you find the copyright laws to be complicated, there are online resources for learning that U.S. copyright really isn't all that complicated. I recommend the ASMP/PhotoShelter "Photographer's Guide to Copyright."

I didn't know that Bruno Mars works at Star Bucks , he should consider a career in singing. Does Bruno know DJT?

Woa woa woa, enough of the political discussion. Citing our great commander in chief is one thing, a full on discussion however is against the rules.

Max, elsewhere in these comments you saw fit to compliment Trump and then again in your previous post. So am I to understand that "citing" our "great commander in chief" is within the rules, while questioning the reasoning of Trump supporters is not?

You are correct. One is a positive message and not picking a fight, while the other is tantamount to trolling. I hope that clears it up for you. Like my mother used to say, if you have nothing nice to say, you should say anything at all.

You are obfuscation in action Max. . .

It's nothing of the sort, it's just the world we live in now. People want to be in echo chambers, so im just abiding by the rules in place. Everything has to be positive, everything has to be in support of something/somebody. We are supposed to keep negativity out bc it's offensive.

So again, yes it's ok to say nice things about somebody, in this case, our elected POTUS. Im not saying anything bad about anybody else, im simply supporting somebody.

TRUMP 2016

yes, very much so. "all all is theft.."

Well we have robots on their way to getting rights so anything is possible in this world now.

Well the media companies did get $150,000 per song shared with their lawsuits. Wha'ts good for the ...

That is the thing.
Trademark law requires you to maintain them if you want to keep them. So you need to even sue everyone who doest play ball with your trademark defence even if it is your mother, otherwise you will lose trademark in first court who can say you didn't protect it in situations XYZ.

It ain't fun but required.

Tommi K1, that's trademark law. There is no correlation on that point with copyright law. Your copyrights stay yours, regardless of whether you do or don't sue people.

IP law is complicated.

Sperm in vitro ?

My bad, that's me, at least it was ! And I will sue any Instagram post of me in such a nudity exposed !!!

The problem with the photo is not the fact that there is Bron Mars on it - the problem is that Bruno Mars took a photo of his person (as child) for which he has no rights. So if you take a photo of a sperm and you say: that's me at very young age! - If somebody else took that photo and has the rights it's his photo! And you have no right to use it - especially if you try to make money with it.

Quite a few millionaires alive today would be pennyless if it weren't for social media. Social media is their life, their identity, and their income.
Don't understimate the power of the "like" in this depressing reality we now live in.