Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: Photographer's or Model's rights?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Photographer's or Model's rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by cityofangels
    Correct me if I am wrong.. But this issue of posting a picture without the Model's Consent may come under Chapter 22(Criminal Intimidation, Insult & Annoyance) of the Penal Code:

    Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
    509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
    What if the person photographed is a man? Does it mean he cannot sue the photographer even if he is photographed in a insulting manner?

    Sometimes, we should also think of how the people being photographed feels, paid models aside, imagine yourself being a "model" for free, and the photographer sells the photo for some money, won't you be irritated? And there are people who do not like their faces to be published on the web, why should they even allow you to publish their photos? The photographer gains fame by doing it, but what does the "model" get? Nothing. It is not fair to the "model" at all.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    NTU and Wdls

    Default Re: Photographer's or Model's rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by cityofangels
    Unseen: I am merely seeking the opinions of others to enlighten myself (and others) on the current issue. I know that I am in no position to say whether the section of the Penal Code which I quoted applys to the current issue at hand. However, in my defense, I never had the intention of pressing "my version" of the law unto others. If I seem to be doing so, then I apologize if my intentions (if I had any) have been misconstrued. And as far as I have been following this thread, there was never any 'definitive' solution. So I can't see how I am wrong in trying to get inputs from others.
    ok.. Sorry for my assertion.. I was just amused that you told off a practicing lawyer's advice as a play of words.

    The original thread starter has already answered by a couple of members who do know quite a bit of law. It's just that the truth doesn't sound that "fair" since there's usually a warped idea of privacy floating out there.
    For a definitive answer, look at kcuf2's post, and Zerstorer's.

    For the purpose of this discussion, the photo in question was this

    What happened was, the photo was requested, subsequently demanded to be removed by proxy (a friend who asserted that his friend saw the photo, and didn't like it in public domain, thus wanted it down).
    The request/demand was rejected on the grounds that such a request to be made by the person in the photo, or at least provide proof that the friend was really his. None could be given.
    Subsequently, the photo was removed at the request of the person in the photo, leading to that post as referred to in the 1st post of this thread.

    peace out..
    Last edited by unseen; 19th August 2006 at 03:29 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts