Image Rights Quotes

I'm not a businesswoman... I never looked after my negatives and you need that to prove you took the photographs.

I do not know exactly why, but it seems to me that images do not belong to anybody but are instead there, at the disposal of all.

Because of my filming commitments in America, you have to sign contracts where you can't change your physical appearance.

Stock photos are used everywhere on the Net. Chances are, the website you are on right now uses stock photos somewhere - maybe as the featured image of the blog post. This also means that there will always be a large market for stock photographers.

It's not legally possible to put an image of a member of the royal family on the Tube!

It's definitely an issue if the actor has passed away without stating any intention or desire about how his or her likeness should be dealt with. Then it falls to their estate. That's a problem that will start solving itself. Now the technology exists, and actors are aware of this and can make their wishes known.

I've never gotten a release from any person. I'm not a businessman; I'm on the side of common sense. Releases ruin the atmosphere of photography.

I have a no-kids policy on my website, meaning I won't publish paparazzi photos of celebrity children. I'll only post photos that celebrities themselves share on social media, or if the kids are photographed at a red carpet event.

Anyone can contribute images, and we sell them to designers and agencies all over the world.

Natalie's estate is handled by Global Icons, and they police the world so her picture isn't on a T-shirt or coffee cup unless we approve of it.

I sued American Apparel because they calculatingly took my name, my likeness and image and used them publicly to promote their business.

Each time I went to create my website, I needed imagery. It was complicated to get, the process was expensive, I had to negotiate rights. I knew there had to be a better way.

I'm a movie star. Can I talk to my entertainment lawyer?

It's not fair that our name can be used in any newspaper, any article connected with anything, and we can't really fight about it. It's like any newspaper that might take a picture of you, bad or good, and sometimes they're awful pictures, and they can use them without your approval and you can't do anything about it.

Every time someone downloads a picture, the photographers get paid about 30% of what we charge.

Because we do not sell photographs, we have no royalties on books, posters, postcards.

As I saw more and more people buying the images that were happy buyers, and people selling the images that were happy with how the market was pricing them, I started to get the sense this could be the go-to place for businesses to get the images they need.

[Press] Photographers are the only dictators in America.

Editorial imagery licensing includes celebrity, entertainment, sports, and news images that capture what is happening in the world around us.

Strangers shouldn't be allowed to take a picture of your child and sell it for profit.

These days, photographers have expensive contracts with actresses, but then the actresses have to have their names written in the column because nobody recognizes them. That's kind of strange.

What has changed is that when I photographed, most people that I photographed didn't have the right of refusal on their work. It would take a Marilyn Monroe at her height to be able to dictate that.

The public doesn't want to hear people complaining about having their picture taken.

It's time to debate images, especially when someone's going to prison for downloading them.

Being depressed is not a beautiful tragedy - it's hell and it's agony. Posting photos of someone that you don't have the consent for is illegal, and that's a huge, huge issue. We need to be teaching consent, and that's not just for photos.