fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Model Emily Ratajkowski sued for posting a paparazzi photo of herself to Instagram Story

by 56 Comments

After posting a paparazzi photo of herself to Instagram Story, model and actress Emily Ratajkowski is being sued for $150,000. Photographer Robert O’Neil has filed a lawsuit against her, citing copyright infringement. He’s reportedly requesting damages, but also to be reimbursed for any profits Ratajkowski gained from sharing this photo.

As we all know, Stories disappear after 24 hours, so the one that got Ratajkowski sued isn’t visible on Instagram any longer. According to Independent, it contained a paparazzi photo of the young model holding a bouquet of flowers that concealed her face, with the caption “Mood Forever.”

E! News writes that O’Neil filed the copyright infringement lawsuit against Ratajkowski in the Southern District of New York. He is suing both the young model and her company, Emrata Holdings Inc. According to the same source, he is requesting damages up to $150,000 and any profits she earned off of his work.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity is being sued for posting a photo of themselves to Instagram. Jennifer Lopez was also slapped with a lawsuit after sharing a paparazzi photo to Instagram Story. Gigi Hadid, Khloe Kardashian, Ariana Grande were also sued for sharing paparazzi photos of themselves, only they shared them as posts. Bruno Mars even got sued for posing a childhood photo of himself to Instagram.

As I mentioned a hundred times before, I’m not really on the paparazzi’s side. I can’t say I like them (to put it mildly). But I also can’t approve posting someone else’s photo without permission or credits (even if you are the subject of the photo). So, once again, I don’t know whose side to take here. Do you think O’Neil should win the lawsuit?

[via FStoppers; image credits: Rogue Artists/Wikimedia Commons (cropped)]

Related posts:

Photographer sues model Gigi Hadid over unpermitted instagram post How Social Media Networks Enable Creative Content Theft IntroSocial Media Networks Don’t Give a Flying Fudge-Nugget About Your Copyright! Jennifer Lopez sued for $150,000 after posting a photo of herself to Instagram Gigi Hadid thinks she can use paparazzi photos because she contributes to them “with her smile and outfit”

  • Off course, she stole.

    We can always debate the ethics around the paparazzi – if the laws should change or what. But the fact is, he did not do anything illegal, she did.

  • Legally yes she breached his copyright by posting his photo however I wonder if she can sue him for taking an unauthorised photo of her or sue him for selling the image (if he did sell it to magazines or other places) especially if she was not paid for it as it is taken of her as she is a model who job is to be paid to be photographed

    • He was free to sell it to magazines as news or editorial content. A more fitting headline would be “Wealthy model steals from independent journalist”

    • Arthur_P_Dent

      If he took the photo in public, he doesn’t need her permission.

  • Judging by the photo in question “no” she was decent enough to pose for the photographer.

    • Yeah that’s not how copyright works

    • Yeah but morally I would let it go.

    • Jonathan Keys morality has nothing to do with law, nor does being paparazzi. She broke the law, the photographer did not.

    • Arthur_P_Dent

      The copyright’s his, since he’s the one who tripped the shutter.

  • If we let her win because we don’t like the idea of paparazzi then a legal precedents gets set that hurts all photographers.

  • Did he ask for her permission or does he have written permission from her to take her photo?

    • Serkan Unalan he doesn’t need permission to take the photo. She does need permission to use it. She broke the law, he did not.

    • Serkan Unalan it’s not required by US Law. She’s in a place with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

    • Anyway does not sound logical. If it was somebody else’s photo ok. That is what i think.

  • Yes. It’s his copyright. It’s his living. Why shouldn’t he be entitled to make a living from his work?

    • He can’t use it without a model release

    • Sergi Yavorski He can of a celebrity out in public.

    • Diane Harvey If this is the portrait in question, where she is looking in the camera posing, then no, he can’t

    • Sergi he can sell it for editorial use without a model release. Whether she is posing or not, it really doesn’t matter.

  • He stole her image first… Maybe she can sue him back.

    • Jorge Correia Luís if she was in public she would not be entitled to privacy

  • The paparazzi is an opportunist out to make a fast buck!

    • kungfu

      correct

  • NO

  • Considering she actually posed for him in the photo, morally he should have let it go, and part of me hopes he loses business over this, as I don’t agree with him going down the legal route. But thats America for you!

  • the article mentions numerous cases, but does not tell in who’s favour each of them has been settled. Once it did, these arguments should be pointless

  • Legally he’s probably right. Morally she is. lts a ridiculous waste of time for everyone

  • This is what happens when people assume and know nothing about the law of copyright. Perception and opinion has nothing to do with the law of copyright. https://www.format.com/magazine/resources/photography/photography-copyright-law-guide

  • No respect for the paparazzi…

    • Josh Harney

      They don’t deserve respect.

  • I agree it’s his photo but depending on if she even made money this could fall flat. If she made no money from the Instagram story that it’s posted might be hard. He also has to prove he lost money from a post.

  • kungfu

    Not even her face in it. Could be a random person.

  • Park your emotions about paparazzi and focus on the law. Copyright law is clear: Photographer is right, she’s wrong.

    • If that photo was taken without her permission and no monetary compensation took place, then the photographer has no copyright over it, rather an intrusion/violation of privacy.

    • Richard Joseph That’s not how copyright law works. The author of a work (in this situation the photographer) owns copyright unless it’s transferred to another party.

      I wrote contracts for IBM and one of its subsidiaries for a number of years and dealt with copyright / intellectual property clauses in contract language. Copyright laws apply the same way to photographs as they do to software.

      Read more here:
      https://thelawtog.com/copyright-laws-for-photographers/

    • Richard no money needs to be exchanged between a photograph’s subject and the photographer to establish a copyright by the photographer.

  • Sometimes I’m so torn. We take their photos without permission and we profit… but, maybe they should profit from us. Just a different way to think about it.

    • they do profit from the publicity they get… copyright laws apply. when she shows up to work at her job, she expects to get paid, she should extend him the same courtesy he was doin his job, if she wanted the photo she should have offered payment for it, the same way if he called up her agent to book a commercial shoot, he’d have to pay her. The grey area she’s trying to create is black and white.. in public places, photography is legal and he had every right to do his job and copyright law applies.

    • Don Barnard. I guess my thoughts were more towards everyday people, not celebrities.

    • Cathy Essex-Specht everyday people need to expect that there’s places you have a right to privacy, and places you do not… anywhere in public spaces, an many places where you’re visible from public spaces it is legal for photographers, police, satellites, google earth cars, drones etc if you get photographed your rights are somewhat limited… but paparazzi and news shooters do not need to get model releases for publications within thier respective fields of work… anybody else who takes photos knows getting photos published without model releases is tough… because publications don’t like getting sued… but for non commercial work… if I’m snapping street photos and not breaking any laws… I don’t need your permission. even if you’re on your own property, if you’re plainly visible from public land or airspace and I’m not breaking any laws like trespassing or stalking… you don’t legally have a reasonable expectation of privacy…. like you would if you were inside your home and somebody pointed a camera to a crack in your blinds… that’s were you can prove they invaded your privacy… but if your windows and blinds are wide open and facing a public street, and you’re standing there naked… you are the one likely breaking the law for public indecency not the people who stand on the street and snap photos. but if they publish those photos without a model release…. then they may be liable. it’s complicated.

      • Josh Harney

        Legal, yes. Right? Not so much.

    • Don Barnard i understand it all and the business side for sure. Fine line in some instances.

  • does she like to get paid for her work, when she works?

    • Josh Harney

      Should he be permitted to take her photo of her face without permission and expect to profit from it?

  • Did he/she asked her permission and paid her for the photo?

    • There is no need if this was in a public space.

  • I think the way this should work is that if someone takes a photo of you in a public place it is the photographers copyright and no-one should be allowed to use the photographer’s photograph without permission EXCEPT the subject of the photo. Let’s call it a fair trade. You can use that photo commercially, but as I’m in it and you didn’t pay me to be in it, I can use it too.

  • Photographer WINS !!!

    • Josh Harney

      Paparazzi are not photographers. They are worse leeches than lawyers.

  • Jeoncs

    Paparazzi are the worst kind of photographers. They’re worse than influencers on instagram or whatever. I don’t understand how they’re not arrested for being stalkers.

  • Josh Harney

    If the photo was taken without permission or under contract, then the subject of the photo, if its a person, should have the right to use it as they please. In essence, you should automatically have the copyright to your name and your face. I know that this is not what the law says, but it should be.

  • Jed

    $150,000 in damages? What damages? He should win and get reimbursed for his legal fees, not a cent more.

  • I feel that as a human I have every right to use any imagine if myself unless I explicitly sold the rights to that image, if someone takes my photo and even has the right to sell that image for profit then I have every right to use the image as well.

    • Maybe in other places, but not in the U.S.

  • Loll

  • Photographer is right, she’s wrong. If the tables were flipped she’d be getting paid of his publication. What poppycock

Recent Posts