As we’ve reported in our coverage of photographer Patrick Cariou’s infringement claim against Richard Prince, Prince and his defenders argue that appropriation art does little harm to individuals from whom appropriation artists steal their raw materials. Their implied question: Where would civilization be without the great works of appropriation artists like Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg?

A hearing on Morel’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for July. The judge is unlikely to issue a decision before fall.

Living in the digital age has meant an unprecedented exploitation of photographs writes David Hoffman

It’s unlikely anyone will ever step forward to claim the credit for that particular piece of ingenious public relations, for it’s clear that AFP and Getty are already bracing themselves for a crushing defeat. Buried deep in their memorandum is a plea to the court that should it find in Morel’s favour, damages should be limited to a maximum of $240,000. That’s a far cry from previous ringing declarations that “in the end, we shall prevail”.

The company suddenly drew a lot of unwanted media attention starting in late February after Pinterest user Kristen Kowalski, who happens to be an attorney as well as a photographer, read the Pinterest terms of service (TOS) and realized that any copyright infringement liability rested entirely on her as a Pinterest user. In a fit of worry, she cancelled her account, and publicized her findings in a blog post as a warning to other users. Her post went viral, and suddenly Pinterest had a PR nightmare on its hands.

Tuesday, The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal wrote that BuzzFeed co-founder Jonah Peretti believes BuzzFeed can legally republish others’ photos in thematic packages such as “33 Animals Who Are Extremely Disappointed in You.”

“I’ve personally apologized to [student photographer] Andy Duann for the mistaken assumption that the CU Independent owned the copyright to the falling bear photo, and the resulting controversy that ensued. At Andy’s suggestion, we’re working on a new policy that will assign use of content to the CU Independent but allow content producers to retain the copyrights to their material.”

“[Agence France-Presse got caught with a hand in the cookie jar and will have to pay.” This statement, written in 2010 by an AFP photo desk editor, could become reality if a judge finds in favour of freelance photographer Daniel Morel in his two-year-long case against the French photo agency and its partner, Getty Images. Olivier Laurent reports

Last week, Asakawa contacted the Boulder Daily Camera, which had agreed to pay Duann $250 to use the photo, and insisted CU Independent be credited; the Camera does not pay for photos from other news organizations, so City Editor Matt Sebastian agreed with Asakawa to run the photo with a courtesy credit and not pay Duann

On Saturday the Associated Press issued a “photo elimination” of Andy Duann’s falling bear pictures, advising its members to “eliminate from your systems and archives” AP’s “Campus bear” photos shot by Andy Duann and credited to the CU Independent, the student publication of the University of Colorado Boulder, where Duann is a student

“They did not pay me even a penny,” he said. Duann, 22, is a native of Taiwan who’s been in the United States for five years. He’s about to graduate with a degree in electrical engineering; photography is his hobby and passion. “We did not sign any contract,” Duann said.

A federal court judge in Chicago has refused a textbook publisher’s request to dismiss a photographer’s claim of massive copyright infringement, saying Robert Frerck’s allegations that Pearson Education infringed about 4,000 of his photographs “are sufficient to put Pearson on notice.”

The internet is bigger than the music industry. The economic impact of the internet is bigger than the music industry. [The entertainment industry musn't] take away the rule that you should only punish someone after appropriate court proceedings.

Link: British Journal of Photography

A French organisation representing professional photographers has launched a new campaign against the abusive use of photographs, often without proper remuneration, by editors and marketers

If you read closely in the TERMS of your social networking sites, even apps like Hipstamatic or video platforms like YouTube, you’ll find that you have given them usage rights to your images that can be as generous as whenever, wherever, for the rest of time.

How do they get away with this?