Google-owned YouTube won a major victory Wednesday when a federal judge ruled the video-sharing site was protected under U.S. copyright law. Viacom, which vowed an appeal, was seeking $1 billion in damages in a case testing the depths of copyright-infring
In short, Wednesday’s decision says internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights-holder’s request — under what is known as a takedown notice.
(Toby Gregory) wanted the photographer Yasuyoshi Chiba to give him some photos from the Rugby Sevens in Kenya yesterday. For some reason he thought that Chiba should give them to him for free! When he refused he attacked Chiba and stole one of his compact flash cards.
On Friday, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York said in a hearing that “whether it’s sooner or later, The Associated Press is going to win” the case.
May 11, 2010 In Copyright Case, Court Rejects Corbis’s Bulk Registration Practices Photographers who have participated over the years in Corbis’s copyright registration program may have less copyright protection than they think—or need. The reason is beca
Photographers who have participated over the years in Corbis’s copyright registration program may have less copyright protection than they think—or need. The reason is because the bulk copyright registration forms that Corbis filed starting in the mid 1990s are missing a crucial piece of information: the names of most of the photographers.
Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images Lens, bodies, laptops, err I suppose Photoshop actions, make up the majority of physical tools we photographers carry around these days. Hardly worth talking about. In fact, once you’ve figured out how you see…
Yep, your claim to ownership is there the moment you make the image. Now, if you really want to have the power to enforce that claim, you need to register that image, but that’s a different post. The only point I’m making is this, you own that image.
That, of course, raises the question: what is copyright really worth anymore if technology has turned it into something that benefits only those with the resources to enforce and defend it at every turn?
Ok, this one is strange but follow me for a moment because this could be a big case for photographers. Haitian Photographer Daniel Morel was in Port au Prince when the earthquake struck and captured some of the first images of the destruction that he then
Haitian Photographer Daniel Morel was in Port au Prince when the earthquake struck and captured some of the first images of the destruction that he then transmitted out. An amazing effort was made by Daniel to get the images out under the circumstances and he used Twitter to do it.
APF (Agence France Presse) found the images after another twitter user stole them from Daniel’s account. APF download the images and distributed them with that other users name in the credit. The images appeared on newspapers world-wide.
Haitian Photographer sued by Agence France Presse (AFP) for “antagonistic assertion of rights” Award winning Haitian born photojournalist, Daniel Morel, has filed an answer and counterclaim to the French international wire service Agence France Presse’s lawsuit filed on March 26, 2010 in Manhattan federal district court. The French international wire service which distributes to approximately 110 countries, which provides text, photographs, videos and graphics to customers on a worldwide basis, asserts that Mr. Morel “has made demands that amount to an antagonistic assertion of rights in his photographs of the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010 at 4:54 p.m. taken in the hour immediately following the quake.
At the forum, called “Copyright and the New Economy,” panelists described their concerns about copyright protection, and explained what they thought a re-vamped system should achieve.
I was just reading on the Guardian that over 200 writers and photographers have signed a petition to refuse to contribute to Bauer’s music titles…due to their greedy contract which wants all rights, and also makes anyone who signs it liable for all damages and costs in the event of legal action.
My latest Guardian column, “Digital Economy Act: This means war,” explains how the latest round of dirty tricks from the entertainment industry — perverting British law, proposing…
My latest Guardian column, “Digital Economy Act: This means war,” explains how the latest round of dirty tricks from the entertainment industry — perverting British law, proposing an American police state, building an oppressive global treaty behind closed doors — changes the game. We’re no longer merely arguing about the future of control over culture: now it’s about the fundamentals of a just and free society
The New York State legislature is once again moving on a right-of-publicity bill for the benefit of Marilyn Monroe’s estate. The state senate could vote on Senate Bill 6790 at any time, but it would still require passage by the New York State Assembly and the governor’s signature to become law.
Bauer, a German-owned publisher which bought music magazines Kerrang!, MOJO and Q in December of 2007 from Emap is trying to impose a new contract on freelancers working for those titles. Over 200 contributors to the three magazines have refused to sign t
Bauer, a German-owned publisher which bought music magazines Kerrang!, MOJO and Q in December of 2007 from Emap is trying to impose a new contract on freelancers working for those titles. Over 200 contributors to the three magazines have refused to sign the new contract which contains clauses that “provide Bauer with an unlimited lifetime financial indemnity in the event of legal action arising from their work” and “to acquire licenses from their subjects for the company to use their image for its own profit as and when it wishes.”
When BAPLA wrote to the Government regarding the controversial Clause 43 of the Digital Economy Bill the association claimed to be speaking on behalf of a united photographic industry. It wasn’t. BAPLA ignored thousands of photographers lobbying to stop the clause. In an open letter to BAPLA, EPUK asks “Why?”
With the annual Burning Man celebration of art and self-expression four months away, its organizers are taking a second look at their Draconian photo and video policies. As it is now, the Burning Man Organization requires ticket purchasers to assign to th
As it is now, the Burning Man Organization requires ticket purchasers to assign to the group the legal rights of photos and video taken at the festival.
We have no choice but to point out that almost every photographer organisation supported Stop43 despite the signatures of some on the BAPLA letter.
The real question is : why BAPLA, Getty, DACS and RPS did not support Stop43 , and why they abandoned the high moral (rights) ground, and with it any claim to speak for us?
On Wednesday, the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and other groups representing visual artists plan to file a class-action lawsuit against Google, asserting that the company’s efforts to digitize millions of books from libraries amount to large-scale infringement of their copyrights.
This week we’ll take a look at a couple of incarnations of the Work for Hire beast and try to play a game of follow-the-bouncing-ball to see where the photographer’s rights go when the song comes to an end.
Many media companies are often at odds with freelance writers and photographers over who owns the words and images once they have appeared in print.
What follows is an exchange of letters about a single picture. It was triggered by an e-mail from the photographer, George S. Zimbel, to Barbara Cox of Photokunst, a consulting firm for both individual photographers and archives, including The New York Times archives.
