How does photographic copyright now stand?

Question

Now that the ruling says that ANY photo of you is copyright to you, and all photo's of me are licensed to my daughter, does it mean that if ANYBODY takes a photo with me in it they have to pay copyright.
Traffic cameras, crowd scenes, somebody elses holiday snaps.
It also means that they cannot be used for ANY gain (fines?) without my daughters WRITTEN permission.
Can someone now clarify the mess we are now left with.
The ramifications are colosal. You see a car crash, you have to get permissions from all involved, no news about wars, in fact no news!!!!
It has been stated that no unauthorised photo is acceptable.

Ah but you see, now in the UK if the photo rights have been sold say to my daughter, then NOBODY can now photo me anywhere without her consent.
I suggest you read and digest the ruling, not a bed time read I guess.
The whole situation now means that unless you have the sole person with rights permission, preferably in writing, you nor anybody else can photograph that person.
You need to read and digest the ruling.
As the ruling now stands, you cannot take a scene shot if there are people in it without their or their agents permissions.
I believe that this ruling will have possible great ramifications.
Personally I agree with you however, it now seems not in the UK.

Answer 1

actually i don't see how this changes anything. performers and models have always had either common law or state statute copyright, which is based on privacy not intellectual property rights. the photographer still holds the rights to the fixed form that is the photo. in order to use an image for commercial and other use, a model release is required to prove that copyright has been satisfied with the model. The law can apply a kind of Mechanics Lien against a photographer's profits when there is no permission for use of an image.

virtually all the absurd things you discuss have already been addressed legally. photographs of people displaying themselves in public places does not require a release. news can even be shot in non-private locations without permissions such as businesses but the practice is discouraged by AP. Most "60 Minutes" footage is shot with permission for example. Police need a warrant to enter a house and that does not include private photography.

if a photo is needed as evidence in a trial, it cannot be withheld. however the photographer is paid a royalty set by the judge for each copy made. a person sitting in a car that is speeding through a red light does NOT have any special expectation of privacy under the law. "fools names and fools faces are seen in public places" is true now as ever.

I am sure there are lawyers willing to stir up bussiness, but don't expect to beat any tickets.