People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and photographer David Slater have told a federal court in San Francisco that they are on the verge of settling PETA’s copyright infringement claim over the infamous monkey selfie.
China is the country that ranks highest in the world for copyright infringement of digital photos. That’s according to a new study by image theft detection platform Copytrack. France and the United States follow in second and third place, respectively.
Photographer Max Dubler struck a nerve with an article documenting the theft of one of his downhill skateboarding images. After finding a skateboard brand using one of his photos without authorization, he did as he always does – he contacted the offending
In the US, a photographer does own the copyright the moment he/she presses the shutter. But damages for willful infringement are generally capped at the market value. Presumably $25 in Dubler’s case since that is the precedent he set. But when you register your image with the US Copyright Office, you can be awarded up to $150,000 per image for a willful infringement plus legal costs.
The Guardian reports that the 52-year-old photographer has run out of funds and is now considering coaching tennis and walking dogs as ways to earn a living.
Photojournalist Matilde Gattoni filed a lawsuit against the clothing company Tibi on the grounds of copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Gattoni alleged that Tibi had posted part of one of her photographs on its Instagram page along with the caption “Palette” and a camera emoji, and also tagged her Instagram handle without her permission (side by side comparison below, with Gattoni’s original photo on the left).
“It’s just a bit rich for Distractify to be claiming 22 Words is ripping off its content when we know at least some of its content is the work of others that they’ve essentially ripped off,” he said.
The Verge published a piece about This is Not Porn, a website run by a Swedish designer Patrik Karlsson that features historical photos of celebrities in non-celebrity contexts. What started as a personal blog has grown over the past 7 years into a websit
The Verge published a piece about This is Not Porn, a website run by a Swedish designer Patrik Karlsson that features historical photos of celebrities in non-celebrity contexts. What started as a personal blog has grown over the past 7 years into a website with a social media presence on Twitter (28k followers) – successful enough to garner mainstream press coverage, and for Karlsson to solicit donations of $350 to pay for website hosting and “a beer or two.”
Neither Forever 21 nor Urban Outfitters are strangers to copyright infringement lawsuits, both having been accused many times of stealing work from other artists. And it’s not just photos, back in 2015, we covered a lawsuit from Adobe against Forever 21, who were accused of pirating copies of Photoshop.
For now, representatives for Issa Rae have told Vanity Fair that the Twitter users who came up with the concept will be credited in some way, and judging by their tweets, they seem to be satisfied with that recognition as adequate payment. Meanwhile, we can expect everyone else associated with the film to actually be paid
Clinch, a noted music photographer, names five defendants, including an agent for Shakur’s estate, two merchandise manufacturers, and retailers Urban Outfitters and Forever 21, which allegedly sold the T-shirts in stores and online. Clinch is seeking statutory as well as actual damages, which he alleges to be in excess of $600,000, according to the lawsuit.
The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.
“This was a huge win for artists, photographer, and creators,” White said in the statement. “These photograph were the result of countless hours of time, attention, planning and preparation.”
Is it copyright infringement if someone embeds your tweeted photo into a news article? One UK photographer says “yes,” and he’s taking news company Sky
Is it copyright infringement if someone embeds your tweeted photo into a news article? One UK photographer says “yes,” and he’s taking news company Sky News to court over it in a case photographers should be watching closely.
If you’re posting your images online with any sort of regularity, they’re probably being stolen from time to time—it’s an unfortunate reality of the digital age. And so, photographer Anthony Morganti decided to create this video and share 3 basic ways to search for and find your stolen photos online.
Photo trade groups are applauding the House vote on H.R. 1695. ASMP praised the vote on its web site, and has said in the past that the bill would “help ensure that the Register of Copyrights has the voice and resources needed to implement policy, manage its operations, and organize its information technology in a way that brings the Copyright Office into the 21st century.”
“This complaint is to seek redress against [Goldstein and his company, Vivian Maier Prints Inc.] for their large-scale copyright infringement operations and deceptive acts that have misappropriate the Estate’s copyrighted works, trademark, and intellectual property,” the estate says in its filing.
I’m talking about money or something of real value. Exposure is worthless. Remember, you can’t buy food with exposure and you can’t save your exposure to buy a house.
For the second time in two months, Jana Romanova is suing VICE Media for the unauthorized use of a photo from her series “Waiting.” In a lawsuit filed March 13 in the Eastern District of New York, Romanova alleges that VICE infringed her copyright when it
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.
