Save up to 60% on all Fstoppers tutorials

Supermodel Bella Hadid Sued by Photographer for Posting Picture of Herself on Instagram

Another day, another celebrity getting sued for posting pictures of themselves. 

Supermodel Bella Hadid is the latest celebrity to be sued by a photographer for posting a picture on Instagram. Hadid posted a picture of herself wearing a houndstooth newsboy cap, which was taken by photographer Timur Mishiev. The caption on the image read: “@zendaya made this hat so I shall wear this hat until I can no longer wear this hat anymore @tommyhilfiger.” Mishiev claims that Hadid had no right to post the picture up and is seeking unspecified damages. 

As is commonly known to many in our industry, the copyright of an image is generally retained by the photographer in question. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be common enough knowledge for many individuals that work in industries associated with ours. 

This seems to be quite a common issue now. Earlier this year, it was reported that Kim Kardashian was being sued by a photographer for similar reasons. 

I wonder if this trend continues if lawmakers step in and make changes to how copyright of images depicting people is handled. It's not a stretch to imagine that people could claim some kind of ownership of images that include themselves. 

Lead image by Wikipedia user Georges Biard, used under Creative Commons.

Log in or register to post comments


Jeff Walsh's picture

When you start your article off with a boring tone, such as, "Another day, another celebrity getting sued," please take a moment to consider how your readers feel. If you know this is old, boring, and beat to death, as you're writing it, also know your readers feel that even more and maybe consider a different topic, approach, view, or slant.

The Photographer's picture

Got to get that traffic and those clicks. Is it good content?
Meh.. its good for business

Geoffrey Baker's picture

Let me fix your headline: Supermodel Bella Hadid Sued by Photographer for Copyright Violation

user 65983's picture


Arthur Shelby's picture

Did you know Bella Hadid insta followers were millions? Why don't you grab few for you? Get it here on wefbee apk

Brad Smith's picture

"It's not a stretch to imagine that people could claim some kind of ownership of images that include themselves." To say it's not a stretch is a would upend copyright law as we know it, while at the same time there is no reason to do so except to benefit celebrities who have the resources to actually purchase images.

Usman Dawood's picture

I don’t agree with it but I’m sure there was a case that fell around that area not so long ago. I can’t quite remember the celebrity involved.

Maybe I’m just not as optimistic. Celebrity’s could in some weird way claim that their look is a brand or has its own copyright because it has value. I wonder if supermodels could argue something like that.

There are several ways it could change, I mean I hope it doesn’t but stranger things have happened.

Tony Clark's picture

I hope that he has the Certificate from the LOC in hand in order to maximize his settlement.

Pieter Batenburg's picture

I am making an assignment for my pupils at school and so far I have learnt that posting pictures on instagram is really big business. Some famous starts make more than a million euros for every posted picture. For the less famous, this can still run into the thousands, So, as a photographer, I would sue the heck out of famous people if they stole my pictures.

Pieter Batenburg's picture

Just be honesttt. If one of these stars used your picture, would you sue them?

Tony Clark's picture

Absolutely, my Intellectual Property has value whether you recognize it or not. There is quite a difference between the court of public opinion and a Court of Law.

Travis Johansen's picture

Punchline: "I wonder if ..,. lawmakers step in and make changes to how copyright of images depicting people is handled. It's not a stretch to imagine that people could claim some kind of ownership of images that include themselves. " - this would be a HUGE CHANGE to photography.

Imagine you do a portrait session and now all they have to pay is the session fee. Legally they can share your photos as much as they want on social media.

Usman Dawood's picture

I don’t agree with it but it’s not like lawmakers are the most in touch bunch.

Also I think certain well known people could argue that their look is part of their brand. I’m pretty sure a case like that happened no so long ago.

Brad Smith's picture

Ok...this is the 2nd time you've said this. Cite the case. I highly doubt it has an legal substance in the way you think it does. As in..sure you can argue that, but you'll never win with that argument.

Usman Dawood's picture

I’ve been trying to search for it and just can’t seem to remember the name of the person. I’ll search some more.

Also I’m not on that side lol. You’re making it sound like I’m for that argument.

I’m not.

I’m concerned that something like that could happen because more idiotic things have happened with copyright, especially here in Europe.

I mean the Eiffel Tower has been copyrighted at night.

Brad Smith's picture

Cute that you downvoted my comment, Usman. Next time, as a journalist if you're going to cite an article to use as evidence be able to actually find it. Otherwise, it's just sloppy writing. Also, "it's not like lawmakers are the most in touch bunch". Really dude? Not only is that unprofessional is opinion. Let's keep that where it belongs, which isn't in a fact-based article.

Usman Dawood's picture

I hadn't realised that I had down-voted your comment lol. That was a mistake but you seem to have taken it unnecessarily hard which is odd. You've down-voted all of my comments and I haven't given you a hard time about that...

I apologise for down-voting yours even though I wasn't intending on doing so; otherwise I would have done the same for your other comments too.

Also, even if it were intentional, why are you taking it so personally?

Finally, I didn't cite that point in the article. This was a discussion we were having.

Brad Smith's picture

Here's the difference...I'm the consumer, you're the author of an article that's supposed to have some journalistic standards. As such, I'm allowed to downvote you, especially when you seem to be ignorant of standard journalistic standards. Those standards don't stop when you comment, buddy. So, just to make it simple for you, it doesn't matter if you cited in the article or the comments.

Usman Dawood's picture

You’re just making up rules to serve your point. A discussion is a discussion. Also I didn’t cite it I described how I remembered but can’t place my finger on it.

Brad Smith's picture

If you're never heard of any of these "rules" you shouldn't be a journalist. And um...of course you couldn't cite it, you couldn't even find it! I doubt it exists, which is partially my point. You're basing ideas on facts that don't exist. Fstoppers should be ashamed you're putting up content after this discussion.

Usman Dawood's picture

Ok, you're wrong, but that's fine. I guess we don't have anything left to discuss.

Brad Smith's picture

find it yet?

Usman Dawood's picture

Nope, I stopped looking when you took it too far.

Brad Smith's picture

when I asked for you to produce what you said you it. not call yourself a journalist in any setting.

Usman Dawood's picture

No I didn't, stop lying.

Brad Smith's picture

"I’ve been trying to search for it and just can’t seem to remember the name of the person. I’ll search some more." So, what was I lying about? That you tried to cite something as evidence and couldn't find it? There's your quote. The best is you couldn't find it...the worst is that you made it up.

Usman Dawood's picture

Ok I’m done talking to you. Also you just said I had claimed I “had... got it” which I never said I did.

You’ve actively made this personal and also you’re not some authority that I answer to.


Brad Smith's picture

1) I was responding to when you said I took it far. I was saying I understood that you thought me asking you to produce your citing was too much for you. Who knows how asking for the truth is taking it to far for a journalist?'re special right? 2) As for it being personal? Nah, it's not. It's asking for you and this site to have basic journalistic ethics. You can't cite something that doesn't exist, buddy, it's that simple.

James Redondo's picture

Wait, wait, she paid the photographer in EXPOSURE. C'mon people, exposure it surely worth more than actual money that can be used to buy goods and services.

Don Risi's picture

Oh, they all understand, all right. Goggle Harlan Ellison "pay the writer." Just be prepared for a few F bombs. But his fight illustrates the problem completely.

They understand. They're just hoping to get away with it. And frankly, most people won't go through the trouble of suing. It's a long, drawn out pain in the neck, and of that $150,000 penalty, the photographer will be lucky to see $50,000. I mean, I'd take the $50K, but still, he won't see even 50% of whatever the settlement is.