Following a number of cases in which celebrities have been sued for posting photos of themselves on social media without permission, we explore the rules around this aspect of copyright law
Our recent article on the rules around posting photographs of other people on social media explained the various restrictions that different platforms imposed. But when it comes to posting photos of yourself, what’s actually allowed?
Believe it or not, being the subject of a photograph doesn’t necessarily mean you own the rights to it. Indeed, there has been a flurry of cases in recent years in which high-profile celebrities from the worlds of sport, music, and reality TV have found themselves in trouble after posting photos of themselves to social media without permission from the copyright holder.
Here, we take a closer look at the rules, list some specific examples of subjects being accused of copyright infringement on social media, and discuss ways in which all parties can protect themselves.
Do you own the copyright to photos of yourself?
Not necessarily. While privacy laws were put in place to protect the subjects of photographs, copyright laws are designed to protect the creators. As explained in the USA’s Copyright Act of 1976 and the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the copyright to any photograph, regardless of who or what it features, falls by default to the person who took it.
The main exception to this is when there has been some kind of contractual agreement beforehand, such as when an individual takes photographs during their employment. This could be a photographer who is shooting on behalf of a commercial organization, for example, or a staff photojournalist working for a newspaper.
While there are some exemptions, listed for the US here and the UK here, it is safest to assume that unless a subject of a photo has been assigned the copyright – or indeed, the photo is a selfie – they need to seek permission from the copyright holder before they can publish it.
Learn more: Copyright and images: What you need to know
If asked, it is unlikely that your best friend will mind you using a photo they took of you as your personal profile picture. On the contrary, they will probably be quite flattered. The same could be true even for a professional who took your photo at a relative’s wedding. Many photographers will simply request that they be credited.
Problems arise in the eyes of the photographer – and the law – if subjects use the images for commercial gain without prior permission. If there is evidence to suggest a photographer has lost earnings from such action, they will likely seek reimbursement.
Photographer vs subject copyright infringement case examples
Here are a few recent examples of image owners filing lawsuits against subjects for publishing photographs of themselves without permission.
Robert Barbera sues Dua Lipa
New York-based photographer Robert Barbera is currently suing British singer Dua Lipa for allegedly publishing photos he took of her in 2018 without his permission.
The photographs were posted to the singer’s Instagram page in 2019. Barbera argues that because the page is used to promote Lipa’s music and brand, his work benefited her financially.
Barbera is therefore seeking actual damages, disgorgement of all profits linked to the infringement, and court costs.
Both parties have form. Lipa faced a similar case brought by Integral Images in July 2021, while Barbera has previously filed lawsuits against Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber.
The case is ongoing.
Backgrid sues Lisa Rinna
Photo agency Backgrid brought a copyright infringement case against reality TV star Lisa Rinna in June 2021, claiming she published photographs they own of her without its permission.
The photographs, which were taken by paparazzi photographers represented by Backgrid, were posted to Rinna’s Instagram account. At the time, Rinna had 2.7 million followers.
Backgrid launched a legal campaign demanding $1.2m in statutory damages, claiming loss of income. Rinna responded by asking the judge to dismiss the case, saying Backgrid “effectively weaponized the Copyright Act to augment its income.”
The two parties have reportedly now settled with the court, avoiding the need for a public trial.
Steven Mitchell sues LeBron James
Sports photographer Steven Mitchell sued LA Lakers basketball player LeBron James for using a picture he took of James dunking the ball against the Miami Heat in 2019.
The suit was filed in March 2020 against both James and his companies, Uninterrupted Digital Ventures and LRMR Ventures LLC, which Mitchell says manage the player’s Facebook page.
According to court documents, Mitchell was seeking profits made from the Facebook post, or $150,000 for every time James used the image.
Interestingly, James responded by filing a countersuit against Mitchell for $1m, arguing that Mitchell was unlawfully using photographs of James on his website to promote his business.
In the end, both parties reached a settlement outside of court that resulted in the closing of both lawsuits in February 2021.
Why does this keep happening?
The above cases are just a small selection of recent examples. Celebrities such as Kendrick Nunn, Khloe Kardashian, Gigi Hadid, and Emily Ratajkowski have all found themselves in similar situations. But why does this keep happening?
Arguably the biggest reason for the increase in cases like this is the free-sharing nature of social media, which provides access to enormous audiences that are often completely out of the publisher’s control. When combined with increasingly blurred lines between editorial and commercial content, you have a recipe for litigation.
At the heart of the problem sit the insecure image formats that are used online. Formats like JPEG, PNG, GIF, and others can easily be copied and redistributed with minimal effort.
This lack of protection leaves the images open to theft, but it is important to remember that not all theft is deliberate.
The fact that these images can be so easily copied and misappropriated means that users unfamiliar with copyright law are often stealing them without even realizing they are doing anything wrong.
Preventing copyright infringement
Several measures can be taken to protect both parties, such as watermarking, downsampling, and adding copyright information to image captions or metadata.
However, none of these offer a comprehensive solution that finds the right blend of strong protection and compelling presentation.
For example, effective watermarking and downsampling sacrifice image quality by either obscuring the image or reducing its resolution, while standard captions are not permanently attached to the image, and metadata can be easily deleted – if it is ever actually seen in the first place.
The most comprehensive solution out there is the use of image-streaming technology. In a nutshell, it is a new way to display images online that provides a more secure and engaging alternative to the current file formats.
With image streaming, the content owner uploads a high-resolution image file to a secure central server and streams it to websites using an embed code – much like embedding a YouTube video.
This makes it possible for an image to appear on unlimited web pages without a single copy being made.
Each image is displayed in high resolution with interactive features such as multi-level zoom and full-screen viewing while maintaining fast page-loading times. This creates the perfect balance between quality, security, and user experience.
If fully integrated, image streaming could revolutionize social media networks, providing a safer and even more engaging place to connect. Below is a rundown of how the technology can benefit all parties involved.
Benefits to content owners
For content owners, there are a number of benefits when using our technology starting with full distribution control over their images, allowing them to monitor and manage where their content appears across the web.
Through a comprehensive list of URLs, owners can easily track unauthorized use and promptly block domains whenever needed.
As well as that, our theft protection features make it significantly harder for images to be stolen, with measures against right-clicks and screenshot attempts.
Permanent attribution is ensured through embedded captions and credits, guaranteeing that images are always correctly attributed, regardless of where they’re shared.
Lastly, image analytics are provided to give the creators valuable insights into viewership metrics such as detailed data on image views and their origins.
Benefits to content sharers
For content sharers, our platform offers customizable deterrent messages triggered by right-click or screenshot attempts.
These messages inform users about copyright protection and direct them to the terms and conditions of sharing, educating them on legal sharing practices and preventing unintentional theft.
Like content owners, sharers benefit from permanent attribution, as embedded captions and credits accompany images wherever they’re shared, ensuring proper crediting and contextual integrity.
Benefits to social media platforms
By streaming every displayed image from a single source file, social media platforms can better police and trace images back to their origin, making it a more manageable task and enabling swift action if necessary.
Our controlled distribution options, including optional sharing buttons, help platforms maintain exclusivity over shared content, ensuring images remain within the intended platform ecosystem.
Calls for changes to the law
Following her experience, Emily Ratajkowski wrote an article for The Cut that raised questions about the rights people have to photographs of themselves. Her view is shared by other celebrities such as Snoop Dogg and Gigi Hadid who have both called for changes to the law.
Copyright law has, however, been designed to protect the creator, so image owners may argue that any exceptions could lead to abuse, especially if the image is in the public interest.
Final thoughts
Whatever the law says, image formats that are currently used online can easily leave all parties unprotected against image misuse, whether deliberate or not.
With this in mind, we believe the main focus should be on protecting those at risk by educating everyone involved on what is permissible and what isn’t, while also preventing images from being stolen in the first place.
SmartFrame’s image-streaming technology is revolutionizing online image display to ensure maximum security and user experience while creating a brand-new revenue stream for the photography industry. Learn more.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest articles and updates delivered straight to your inbox