I am flabbergasted by the tech savvy of the ex-girlfriend (of course) but also of the mom who immediately knew to contact webmasters to have the image removed from their servers and also to hit it from the copyright angle, too (a law professor perhaps?). However, I don't quite get it when she declares "My minor son's ex-girlfriend took a copyrighted picture of him (we own copyright)", the article mentions it was a professionally taken photo, so the photographer (or studio) owns the copyright in this case.
"Hell hat no fury" is very old, but the girl's revenge is so cool!
I've never seen professional studios transfer copyright to people. That's why none of the photo services in Walmart, Walgreens, etc. will make a copy of a photo that was taken professionally.
Some photographers with more enlightened business models will do a shoot and then give you an agreed-upon subset of the images (2 or 3) with copyright transfer.
If you want the others at some point, you can pay an additional fee.
This way, the photographer still has the potential for later additional profit, and you have the copyright for the photos you like best. Everyone wins.
She might have a right to noncommercial distribution.
It's not uncommon to give that for childrens' photographs and "glamor shots" that you get at the mall. This way people can make copies for their own private use, without worrying about breaking the law and the photographer will still get paid if say the boys photo ends up on the nightly news.
Exactly; in fact that's how all the studio shots I had before worked. That does not mean that you have the copyright, though, the photographer/studio can still use the photo in ways they see fit and sell it.
The fact that the photo studio owns the copyright doesn't mean that they can use the photo is ways they see fit and/or sell it. Copyright is a sword, not a shield: With copyright they can prevent the use of the image as they see fit.
The right to use an image or likeness of a person as they see fit is conveyed by the model waiver. When you sit for a private, personal portrait session that you pay for, the waiver you sign shouldn't assign all rights to your likeness to the studio.
On the other hand, if you are paid to model something, the waiver you sign probably does give the photog all rights to those images in perpetuity.
But even then there are limitations. Most jurisdictions won't allow an implied endorsement unless the picture was specifically taken for that purpose. For example, if a young model sits for a stock picture which depicts him sitting in an Aeron chair and he later becomes a famous programmer, Aeron cannot buy that picture from the photographer and run an ad saying "Bill Gates loves Aeron Chairs!"
That's not entirely true. A children's portrait service will transfer copyright (they explicitly state this) and provide the original digital file for an extra fee.
It's been awhile since I've had anything professionally taken, but previously I've never had any trouble finding a photographer unwilling to assign copyright with a bit of wrangling. I've never paid extra, but I have been quite adamant that I won't be paying at all without it.
"Hell hat no fury" is very old, but the girl's revenge is so cool!