Has anyone used your photo without permission or credit? What would you do if it was a worldwide famous supermodel, posting your photo to millions of her followers without crediting you? This is exactly what happened to photographer Don Mupasi. Tyra Banks posted one of his photos to almost 5 million of her followers without crediting him as the photographer. And it seems he’s not the only one whose photo she used.
It’s no secret. Copyright theft is rife on the Internet. Finding online photo thieves to send DMCA takedown notices and a bill is even a full time job for some people. But what if you want to look for yourself? Well, there are a few services out there, but checking them all individually, manually, can be a very time consuming process.
Now, thanks to PhotoTracker Lite, it just got a whole lot easier to find copies of your images around the web. It’s available as an extension for Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi and Yandex.Browser. Essentially, it gives you a right click context menu that brings up searches in the four most popular reverse image search engines out there.
Although some quite enjoyed the idea of seeing Getty get a good legal spanking for once, that is not how things are turning out. US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff has dismissed all of Carol Highsmith’s federal copyright claims. After the dismissal on October 28th, he left three of Highsmith’s state law claims intact. Those, too, have now been voluntarily dismissed after Highsmith and Getty have reached an agreement to settle the case.
For those who missed it, Highsmith filed suit in July after she discovered that Getty had been charging fees to license images she had created without her consent. She only realised this after they attempted to bill her for the use of one of her own photographs and did a little digging. They had attempted to sell almost 19,000 images she had created.
In about one week will mark the anniversary of the most traumatic and violent piece of history in France in the last decades. The 13th of november 2015, several coordinated terrorist attacks took place in Paris, less than a year after the attacks against the newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
Still today, Paris feels different. Much like the 9/11 attacks, Paris now has this air of danger, still lingering, and the attacks are clearly in the heads of every Parisian.
There’s nothing better than receiving an email with a $2500 paycheck attached to it out of the blue.
That was my cut of a settlement that Pixsy was able to secure on my behalf from a single unauthorized use of one of my photos.
If you’ve ever had one of your photos published without a license (and who hasn’t), I am going to try to explain why and how you can get paid (in cash not credit) for the unauthorized use of your creative work.
OK, those are not the exact words of Getty, but this is what their response feels like. As you may recall we reported this 1 Billion dollars lawsuit back in July. If you want the background, Getty sent an infringement notice to one Carol M. Highsmith. Here is the funny thing. Carol M. Highsmith was the photographer who took the photo in the first place.
In response, Carol sued Getty for 1 billion dollars for “gross misuse” of 18,755 of her photographs, she claims that Getty “falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner” (The amount comes from $25K per image in statutory damages times three).
Now it’s Getty’s time to respond (and they did file a response on September 6th) and here is what they are saying:
Recently retired Mötley Crüe are being sued by legendary rock photographers Barry Levine and Neil Zlozower. Their work was slapped on all kinds of merchandise from photographers sickers, flags, and even baby onesies. Their claim is that the band did not have the rights to use images that were on merchandise being sold during their farewell tour.
Blabbermouth reports that the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday (September 6th) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In it, Motley Crue, Inc are named along with 23 other defendants including Amazon (where allegedly infringing products were sold) along with a number of clothing, poster and other merchandise manufacturers.
The use of copyrighted material without permission (aka piracy) gets a lot of attention in the music industry, but those of us who earn income from visual arts are just as often (if not more so) screwed over by rampant online piracy.
Interestingly, Taylor Swift and other huge creative content producers suffer from many of the exact same issues as independent photographers, filmmakers and visual artists (on an entirely different scale of course).
Now, with the current review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ongoing in the US – artists like Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Paul McCartney and some of the world’s other top creative content procurers think that it’s time to hold tech companies responsible for rampant piracy.
Amen – digital copyright control is long past due – click to continue reading…
I’m fussy today.
And it’s not because I ran out of coffee; it’s not because I didn’t get a proper night’s sleep, and it’s not because I’m worried Gary Johnson won’t be given a chance to participate in the Presidential debates, although that last one is a concern.
I am fussy because, once again, a leader in the photography industry committed plagiarism on her blog, Facebook account and website. Yes, that’s right; I said “again.” As in, it has happened before, more than once. Not a straight copy and paste, because that would be way too obvious, of course. The clever plagiarists among us know to avoid that. Instead, they find brilliant writings, sources of inspiration and motivation, and move bits and pieces around. They change a few words, add a few of their own, while keeping the structure, the bones of the writing, intact.
remember that monkey who took a selfie and then PETA claimed it owned the copyrights for that selfie? And remember that the federal court ruled that the monkey can’t be the owner of the photos? Well, you know the saying: It ain’t over till the fat monkey sings. And indeed it seems that PETA just appealed the decision in what has to be the weirdest copyright case in the history of monkeys.