wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Bombay HC Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Photographer Whose Photos Were Uploaded to “Objectionable” Sites by Unknown Persons

The HC has temporarily stayed criminal proceedings against the accused, who uploaded pictures of a client to image-sharing sites, which were later uploaded to ‘objectionable websites’ by unknown individuals.

The Bombay High Court temporarily stayed criminal proceedings against a photographer charged with voyeurism and privacy violations for uploading pictures of a client to image-sharing sites, that were later uploaded to “objectionable websites” by unknown actors. In their November 30th order, a Division Bench of Justices N.R. Borkar and Prakash D. Naik clarified that the case surrounded “whether Section 354(c) [voyeurism] and other offences invoked in this proceedings are attracted against the Petitioner.”

However, once you scratch beneath the surface, this case surrounding the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, involves multiple questions of copyright too. For example, does the ‘victim’ have the right to restrict the photographer from releasing photographs he took online?

Tell me more about this case?: The photographer had initially “clicked” pictures of the dancer with her consent in September 2019, which he uploaded to websites like Pinterest, Pixabay, and Digital Studio. Once uploaded, unknown persons went on the upload the photographs to “objectionable websites”.

The dancer’s counsel submitted that these pictures were initially uploaded to the three image-sharing websites without her permission. That they were later shared on objectionable websites also caused her mental trauma, which she claimed “was on account of the act committed by the Petitioner”.

The photographer’s counsel argued that there was no evidence indicating that he “was instrumental in uploading the photographs on the objectionable website”. What’s more, the dancer had also uploaded her photographs to Pinterest too.

The photographer subsequently moved the Bombay High Court, challenging the proceedings lodged against him at the Girgaon Magistrate 18th Court, arising out of an FIR filed in 2021 by the Mumbai Police. He was charged under:

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 354 (c), which criminalises voyeurism, or when “any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image”; and Section 500, which details punishments for defamation.
  • The Information and Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): Section 66E which punishes privacy violations, such as when a person “intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person”.

How does copyright come in?: The spanner in the works here lies over whether the dancer had the right to restrict the photographer from releasing the photograph online. This comes back to a central question: who actually owns the copyright over the images, given that both the dancer and the photographer uploaded the pictures online to image-sharing sites?

We spoke to copyright lawyer Rahul Ajatshatru for answers—and he had this to say:

MediaNama: Did the dancer have the right to restrict the photographer from releasing the photograph online at all?

Rahul Ajatshatru: A person can always revise the terms of consent and also restrict the usage at the time of the photograph or thereafter. Consent is generally procured in commercial shoots and most of the contracts have the usage and term period very clearly defined.

MediaNama: Who actually owns the copyright over the images, given that both the dancer and the photographer uploaded the pictures online to image-sharing sites?

Rahul Ajatshatru: [Hypothetically] The photographer owns the right over the photograph, as he is the composer of the shot/author of the picture. [The] Dancer has no inherent right to use the photograph.

MediaNama: The photographer released the images on Pixabay, a repository of royalty-free stock images and media that any user can download for free. Is there any liability then on the photographer?

Rahul Ajatshatru: Being the owner of the copyright in the photograph, the photographer can usually publish it in the manner he deems fit, and can do it for free or for money. It is only when the usage is objectionable, that the person so photographed can ask the photographer to take it down.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Read more


STAY ON TOP OF TECH NEWS: Our daily newsletter with the top story of the day from MediaNama, delivered to your inbox before 9 AM. Click here to sign up today!


 

Written By

Free Reads

News

The service from the tie-up will initally be launched at Bengaluru, Bhubaneswar, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam railway stations

News

The Minister's response came after an X user posted answers generated by Gemini regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

News

Vaishnaw said that in the next five years, there will be significant disruptions in the way telecom technology operates.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.

Views

News

Notably, Indus Appstore will allow app developers to use third-party billing systems for in-app billing without having to pay any commission to Indus, a...

News

The existing commission-based model, which companies like Uber and Ola have used for a long time and still stick to, has received criticism from...

News

Factors like Indus not charging developers any commission for in-app payments and antitrust orders issued by India's competition regulator against Google could contribute to...

News

Is open-sourcing of AI, and the use cases that come with it, a good starting point to discuss the responsibility and liability of AI?...

News

RBI Deputy Governor Rabi Shankar called for self-regulation in the fintech sector, but here's why we disagree with his stance.

You May Also Like

News

Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...

Advert

135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...

News

By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

News

Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Name:*
Your email address:*
*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ