Two Sides of a Single Frame

These days I’m working in Turin at the ATP Finals. And I know exactly what rights I have to this photograph of mine!  © Sergey Vishnevskiy

Every photograph lives two parallel lives: the moral right and the economic right.

The moral right is personal. You remain the author forever. This right allows you to demand attribution, to prevent your photo from being cropped, filtered, or used in a way that contradicts your intention. It's an invisible signature embedded in the idea of the image itself.

The economic right is commercial. It gives you the power to decide who may use your image, and where. To sell it, license it, or forbid its use. This is where conflicts usually begin — when someone decides that because you “just pressed a button,” the photo no longer belongs to you.

In reality, these two layers are inseparable: one protects your name, the other protects your work. The law safeguards both.

Who owns the image

If you work under accreditation — from the ATP, WTA, a newspaper or an agency — the economic rights of use often transfer to them.A newsroom can publish your images, but you cannot sell them to brands without permission. Before you “send a sponsor a couple of shots for a post,” read your contract again.

The phrase “transfer of exclusive economic rights” means the image no longer belongs to you. You cannot even post it on your own Instagram without approval.

This is why professionals work through licensing: permission to use, but not ownership. It’s fair and protects both sides.

In Russia today, specialized legal agencies actively monitor the Internet under agreements with photographers to detect illegal use of their images. When they find infringements, they take violators to court and recover substantial amounts. Similar in-house legal teams are increasingly common in major photo agencies to protect photographers and their content.

A few simple rules

Keep your RAW files — they are your DNA, your proof of authorship. Read contracts, especially the fine print.Specify terms of use — where, how, and for how long your images may be published.Use a signature or watermark — even a small one discourages theft.Never give away rights “for a mention” — your work is worth more than a tag.

When a photographer goes to court

Copyright feels like bureaucracy — until someone steals your photo. Then the abstract law becomes your only defense.

These cases prove that behind every frame stand not only technique and talent, but the law.

Jonathan Mannion vs. Coors Brewing Co. (USA)

Mannion photographed NBA star Kevin Garnett — a powerful black-and-white portrait: white T-shirt, heavy chains, sky behind him.Coors later ran an ad with a different person, but nearly identical composition.The court ruled: this is not an “idea,” but an original expression — and Mannion won. Composition, light, and mood are creative work and cannot be copied without consequence.

Patrick Cariou vs. Richard Prince (USA)

Artist Richard Prince used dozens of unlicensed photos — including portraits of Jamaican Rastafarians — in his Canal Zone series.Cariou sued.A lower court found infringement, but the appellate court declared Prince’s works “transformative enough,” stretching the idea of fair use to its limit.

Allen Kee vs. NFL & Detroit Lions (USA)

Kee captured an iconic mid-air shot of a football player.The team later unveiled a bronze statue replicating the pose and proportions from his photo.Kee sued — and won. A sculpture can violate photographic copyright if it reproduces the protected original image.

Daniel Morel vs. AFP & Getty Images (USA)

During the Haiti earthquake, Daniel Morel posted photos on Twitter.AFP and Getty downloaded them and began selling them.Morel won 1.2 million USD in damages. The court confirmed: posting online does not waive copyright. Social media does not make images public domain.

Lara Jade Coton vs. TVX Films (USA)

Photographer Lara Jade discovered her self-portrait stolen and used on a porn DVD cover.After three years in court, she won 130,000 USD.This became an important international case proving that digital publication does not void an author's rights.

Michael Gaffney vs. Iconic Images & Muhammad Ali Estate Gaffney, Muhammad Ali’s personal photographer in the 1970s, discovered that an agency was using his archival photos after their license had expired.He won: the author’s rights remained his, even decades later.

A frame is your footprint

A photo is more than an image. It is your vision, your reaction, your experience.Copyright is not a formality — it is the protection of your identity and your profession.

Guard your images, your name, and your principles.

Because in this noisy world, photography remains your quiet but undeniable proof:

I was there, I captured this — and it is mine.