Liebowitz believes that a judge evaluating the latest lawsuit will consider previous cases of infringement by the defendant. “As a result of the second infringement, the damages should be significantly higher,” he says.
Bauret’s family sued Koons over a 1988 sculpture (shown at right) titled Naked, which closely copied a 1975 photograph by Bauret titled Enfants. The black-and-white photograph depicts two naked children holding hands. The Koons sculpture depicts two naked children with body positions and haircuts that are nearly identical to those in the photograph.
The copyright office is considering whether or not it’s necessary to strengthen protection of these rights
One father who live-streamed his partner’s labour on Facebook last May, has found out the hard way: he saw the birth of his son replayed on Good Morning America and numerous other media outlets.
This week, he lost a high-profile court battle against the broadcasters
This infographic looks at what legalities are involved in image manipulation, focusing on US laws whilst also taking a look at UK laws and other factors from around the world. It’ll discuss what aspects can be involved in image manipulation and how the laws are interpreted by different people. At the end, we’ll also take a look at some case examples, delving into how the law has or hasn’t favoured manipulated images.
Here are some of the interesting stats: 64% of photographers experienced image theft this past year, 50% of the thieves were bloggers and social media users, and 84% of photographers never register their photos with the U.S. Copyright Office.
This means Instagram can give this license to anyone they want. Getting nervous yet?
Our latest report aims to clear up confusion around copyright law and highlight pitfalls news organisations should avoid when using eyewitness media.
alleges that VICE violated her copyright when it published one of her photos of parents-to-be online with an article titled “What It’s Like to Be a Millennial in a Sexless Relationship”
Steußloff argued that this practice violates German Copyright Law, and therefore Facebook is bound to stop doing it. In a ruling on February 9th, the court agreed; and since it’s been six months and Facebook has not challenged the ruling, the judgement is considered final.
Three weeks after a federal judge gutted photographer Carol Highsmith’s $1 billion copyright claim against Getty Images, the two sides have ended their dispute with a settlement of the remaining claims. The terms of the settlement, over minor state law claims, were not disclosed.
It’s one of the strangest, saddest copyright rulings we’ve ever heard of. Motolko captured the northern lights photo above during an all-night photo shoot in March of 2015, sharing it and others like it on social media where his post went viral. The next night, state-run television network Belteleradiocompany used it without permission, credit, or payment.
“Public domain works are routinely commercialized,” writes Getty. “Publishers charge money for their copies of Dickens novels and Shakespeare plays, etc.” That, claims Getty, is what they’re doing with Highsmith’s work, and it’s totally legal.
While the second agreement was more fair to the photographer, it’s notable that Condé Nast tried to get the photographer to sign an unfair agreement in the first place and only offered the photographer a more equitable agreement when they stood up for their rights.
Getty allegedly copied roughly 47,048 of Zuma’s photos and made them available for sale through Getty Images after replacing Zuma’s credit with Getty’s.
For the second time in a week, Getty has been hit with a lawsuit claiming misuse of thousands of images. The latest claim, filed by Zuma Press, alleges copyright infringement for unauthorized reproduction, sale and public display of about 47,000 sports images.
Ed has seen all of the legal and factual issues at play in this case in many other cases. What is particularly notable here is that this is the first case he has seen where ALL of these apparent transgressions were committed in a single case. The fact pattern is almost too good to be true for the plaintiff/photographer. This is to a lawyer very much like it would be for a person who hasn’t had a decent meal in months setting his/her eyes upon an endless Las Vegas buffet.
via A Photo Editor
Carol Highsmith filed suit July 25 in federal court in New York, alleging that Getty and its subsidiaries have been charging fees for the use of her images without her consent. She has been providing the images to the Library of Congress since 1988 for use by the general public at no charge.
Not only did the media company—recently valued at more than $4 billion—want all of the rights to the photographer’s images, they also wanted the photographer to indemnify Vice Media LLC from any legal action that might result from the use of the images: