In 2006, Sarah Scurr was a still a student, studying abroad while working on a languages degree in Santiago. While on a visit to the nearby San Rafael Glacier, Scurr took the image you see above from the tour boat. Scurr had tucked the photo away until she moved to the UK several years later. Pleased with how her glacier photo came out, she entered into a contest hosted by The Telegraph. The photo made it into the final rounds and was considered by to be one of the top contenders. Scurr was pleased with the success of her image, but didn’t put much more thought into it as she carried about her life. [Read more…]
In a suit filed on January 28th in the California District Court, Adobe has accused the retail clothing company, Forever 21, with pirating software. Adobe alleges Forever 21 has illegally obtained 63 copies of various Adobe products such as Photoshop and Illustrator. Corel and Autodesk have also joined the lawsuit, citing Forever 21 has pirated copies of their software as well.
The piracy has apparently been an ongoing issue between Adobe and Forever 21. In the suit, Adobe states Forever 21, “continued their infringing activities even after being contacted by Adobe regarding the infringement.” It is not known exactly how the software company was able to track the incident; however, Adobe is in possession of specific registration numbers and dates corresponding to the allegedly pirated software. [Read more…]
One of the most intriguing photo-related copyright infringement lawsuits in recent years has been put on hold due to a bankruptcy protection request.
Rod Stewart and the other defendants have avoided an appearance in court, for the time being, following Caesars Palace filing for Chapter 11 earlier this month.
If you’ve been following the sports, economic or photography news, you’ve probably heard about the photographer suing Nike for violating the copyright of one of his Michael Jordan images, while creating the famous shoes and athletic clothing brand.
Obviously the lawsuit made headlines due to it involving one of the most powerful sports brands and the greatest player to have held a basketball. I mean, such violations occur on a daily basis. So strip the story of the big names, and aren’t we left with just another boring copyright case? Absolutely not, and that’s what I believe most photographers have been missing.
A Belgian court has recently found Luc Tuymans’ painting of a local politician to be in breach of a photographer’s copyright.
The photographer whose photo was copied, Katrijn Van Giel, sued the painter leading to his conviction of plagiarism.
Originally sued for $57,000, Tuyman’s could end up paying over half a million Dollars if caught again.
This is a sad story about image thievery (again), and why I think it is so common on the internet. It is coming from a personal perspective, but I think there is much to be learned from it about how easy stealing images is nowadays and how (despite the law is on our side) it is sometimes very hard to fight. Being a photo stealing story, it obviously starts with one of my images being “borrowed”. I was considering my options. Each and every article on the web says talk to a lawyer, so I did. He basically said: You can’t do anything and you will never see any money.
Having just returned from Paris, I spent some time photographing a few of the world’s most famous landmarks.
Some of these photos are just my personal vacation photos and will only be seen by me (and maybe my Facebook friends…DIYP readers…Facebook friends of DIYP readers…). But, a few of them will end up being sold commercially as royalty free stock through my stock portfolio over at Stocksy United.
If you are a photographer, and especially if you are a commercial photographer (commercial in the general sense that you take photographs or sell photographs for money), you should be aware of the copyright restrictions for landmarks, buildings, architecture, art and other intellectual property.
Keep reading, because like this restriction on publishing photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night, there are more weird copyright restrictions for landmarks, buildings, architecture, art and other intellectual property than you might think.
One of the most iconic places to visit in France (and in Paris in particular) is the Eiffel tower. And while anyone is free to take its photos by day or night, sharing a photo of the light-show that the tower is engulfed in is pretty much infringing on the copyright of the show.
torrentfreak aims a spot light on this weird copyright situation by explaining that some architecture and some landmarks are copyrighted.
Actually, the Eiffel tower official website states this pretty clearly:
Getty Images has officially filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, accusing the tech giant of infringing copyright laws on millions of images from Getty’s online collection. On August 22, Microsoft unveiled the Bing Image Widget to the public, which allows anyone to embed images they find using Microsoft’s Bing Search Engine, using a simple code which is supplied by Microsoft. Once search parameters have been entered into Bing’s Image Widget generator, the code can simply be copied and pasted for use on any website, commercial or otherwise, and will display the images yielded from the search results.
Two weeks ago, the story of the selfie-taking monkey gave me what I had thought was the best article title I was ever going to get to right. I was wrong. This is the best article title that I’ve ever gotten to write.
For those who missed it, around the beginning of this month Wikipedia was caught in a bit of controversy for its ruling on photographs taken by a monkey with photographer David Slater’s camera, saying that Slater had no copyright to them since he wasn’t their photographer. In a update to the story equally as bizarre as the story itself, the US Copyright Office released a 1,222-page document establishing new policies and reaffirming existent stances set on copyright law; touching on the subject at hand, the Office basically said that a picture taken by a monkey is unclaimed intellectual property.