fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

Submit A Story

Kim Kardashian sued for posting photo of herself to Instagram, hires personal photographer to share his photos from now on

by 24 Comments

Kim Kardashian seems to be following the celebrity trend of posting photos of herself to Instagram without photographer’s permission. And just like many celebrities before her – she got sued over it. Photographer Saeed Bolden is suing Kardashian after she shared a photo that she took of her and Kanye West. Funnily enough, she hired a personal photographer after the incident in order to avoid future legal dispute.

 

According to TMZ, Kardashian shared a loving moment between her and her husband with her followers on Instagram. Saeed Bolden captured the photo back in 2018, but the photographer claims that he never gave his permission to the star to share it. Therefore, he is suing Kardashian, but there’s no word on the exact amount he is seeking. TMZ reports that the photographer is suing “for any profits” she made of the Instagram post, and he also seeks “punitive damages”.

As Metro reports, Kardashian decided to hire her own photographer so she can post his photos on social media from now on. “Btw since the paparazzi agencies won’t allow the fans to repost, all of my pics are taken by my own photog and you guys can always repost whatever you want,” she tweeted. “If I ever post from an agency I will tag them and I have permission. So those please don’t repost!” I hope that her photographer agreed in writing to have his photos shared without credit by thousands of Kim Kardashian’s fans. Otherwise, she may face another lawsuit in future.

As you probably remember, other celebrities were in a similar situation over the past couple of years. Emily Ratajkowski, Gigi Hadid, Jennifer Lopez, even Kim Kardashian’s sister Chloe – they’re only some of the stars that were sued by paparazzi. Interestingly enough, Kim Kardashian recently started another legal battle, but she was on the other end. An app developer used her photo without permission, so she sued them for $10,000. If this has happened earlier, I guess that she’d be more careful with posting other people’s work without permission. But, she seems to have found a way to at least prevent future legal disputes by hiring a photographer of her own.

[via FStoppers; lead image credits: Eva Rinaldi/Wikimedia Commons]

Related posts:

An app developer used Kim Kardashian’s image without permission – Now she’s suing them for $10,000,000 FTC to crack down on social media celebrity advertising posts Actor Bill Murray accosted a photographer at Martha’s Vineyard restaurant Gigi Hadid thinks she can use paparazzi photos because she contributes to them “with her smile and outfit”
  • jason bourne

    Don’t know why people would take pics of this attention whore to begin with.

  • Didn’t read the the full article because I want to keep my breakfast in and reading the K word too often can mess with that. Anyway…how does she have the picture in the first place? Did she pay him for it? If yes I think it’s her right to use it. If no, why does she have the picture?

    • She never paid the photographer for it, that’s why she’s being sued. The article doesn’t say how she got it so it was most likely just copied from wherever the photographer had originally posted it; given they’re a paparazzo it was likely in an online magazine.

    • I don’t know what the law is exactly but I reckon unless she’s given permission to the photographer to take the photo and consent to them posting it wherever she should probably have more right to it than he does. It’s her likeness that is of value. Not his craft.

    • Robert Bowden nah, it’s freedom of press mate, don’t need to have permission.

    • Then neither should she.

    • Yeah, this is where articles like this one get tricky. There is just too much information missing.

    • Robert Bowden she’s making profit from it, that’s why she needs permission.

    • He’s making profit from her. She’s the one that gives the picture value. Him taking the picture doesn’t add value.

      • Sartaj Randhawa

        It may. I’ve seen pleasing photos of people who in reality aren’t that pleasant to look at. Who isn’t trying to make a profit? I think its Kardashian that’s been making the profit.

    • Robert Bowden Fortunately, that’s how copyright law works. It’s a case of, ‘don’t want your photo taken don’t go out in public’.

    • But people do naturally own themselves. Any law that gives someone else more right to this without explicit consent is wrong.

      • Sartaj Randhawa

        Of course they own themselves. Nobody disputes that. This is about a reproduction of their image by a photographer. The photo is a work created by an artist. Maybe he used a specific lens to create an image that makes her look more pleasing to the eye. That was or could be an artistic decision that he has rights to.

    • And I’m not saying no one should be able to take their picture and using it but the subject should have rights to that picture. Otherwise any band posting articles that featured them would be in big trouble.

    • People do own themselves, they do not own art of themselves. That’s like saying Ibanez or Fender own the music that’s written/recorded on their instruments.

    • I’d say the photographer is the brand in this case. The value of what’s created is more dependent on the player.

    • Maybe the guitar wasn’t the best example, it wasn’t really meant as a direct simile.

      The photographer is literally the artist, they created the art; if you want it you have to pay for it (or licence it in this case) – you don’t ask a painter to paint you and then expect to get it for free because you’re the subject!

      A ‘photographer’ will take the steps to make an actual photograph get the right angle, framing, and exposure etc whereas your average twat with an iPhone… is just that, and will likely make them look meh at best, where does the ‘value’ lie now(?) definitely not with the subject… the most beautiful subjects in the world can be made to look like shit by an unskilled artist.

      She obviously saw ‘value’ with this particular photo, she knew it would help her financially, so why did she not pay for it?! She’s accepted that she’s done wrong and also accepted that there is ‘value’ in the process of making art by hiring a personal photographer as a result of this.

    • Ali Mckellar “you don’t ask a painter to paint you”

      Here’s the problem, isn’t it? We’re talking about people who were not asked.

    • Daniel P Sousa you’re arguing semantics at this point. There is no problem here. The reality is that there are laws and freedoms in place that allow the press to report the news. The photo in question was part of that.

    • Were talking about Kim K. I think she’s literally done the painting in this case.

    • Kamal Krishna

      It’s as easy as right click and save image.

  • Tj Ó Seamállaigh

    many times did I wonder, what value to the community, culture, or arts do such people add?

  • Lousy picture too

  • Michael Stahl

    But like when you buy one copy of a book, that doesn’t give you the right to make more copies of that book. Buying one copy of a photo is the same thing.

Recent Posts