The concept of who owns an image is very interesting.
I don’t know if I’m extremely tired or the thought just entered my mind like a brain wave…
When a photographer takes a picture of a person, with their permission or even without their permission— who has the most ownership of the image?
It may have been the photographers art, direction and idea to take the shot but if the person in it doesn’t agree to it then the photographer can’t use it because it’s going against the persons wishes & touching on privacy issues.
Where does the paparazzi come into this? Is it because famous people are public property? I’ve always thought I’d make a good paparazzi photographer, but I would work for myself and be a nice one.
I would approach famous people nicely & If they didn’t want to I would respect their space, probably wouldn’t make a good living like most paparazzi but * there’s always different approaches to getting a picture!*
Photo permission is a toughie. I recently took pictures at a ball, and everyone that happily stood in front of my camera obviously didn’t mind that their picture would end up somewhere in the paper or on the web. Then there were candid ones where the person was not aware I was taking a picture of them, so I guess that’s where it comes down to.
_This was just a ramble and probably won’t sound so profound when I read it in a few days time NB: It’s what happens when you’ve had 3 hours of sleep the night before _