Famous model Gigi Hadid is being sued for copyright infringement. Last week, Photographer Peter Cepeda filed a lawsuit against her because she posted his photo of her on Instagram without his permission. She allegedly ripped the photo from a news outlet, removed the credit byline, and posted the photo to her profile. By doing this, she violated the copyright law, so Cepeda and his agency INF decided to file a lawsuit.
We reported a while ago that the monkey selfie case could come to an end. And finally, this happened. After two years of court battle, David Slater, PETA and Slater’s co-defendant Blurb have reached a settlement. Slater has agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue from the famous selfies to charities that protect the habitats of crested macaques.
In February 2016, the Department of Labor sued B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. (or B&H Photo) for discrimination against multiple groups. A year and a half later, they have agreed to pay $3.22 million to settle the case.
As the Department of Labor writes, B&H states that they “employ an incredibly diverse group of people.” However, according to the lawsuit, this isn’t the case. B&H allegedly discriminated against Asian, black and female job seekers at the Brooklyn Navy Yard warehouse by hiring only Hispanic men into the entry-level jobs. Additionally, they were sued for paying their Hispanic employees less than white workers, and not offering them promotion to higher positions.
Do you remember the monkey selfie that went viral, and the ridiculous story that the monkey should hold the copyright to the photo? British nature photographer David Slater, who photographed the black macaque in 2011, ended up being broke. He considers switching his career, and he might just give it all up when it comes to the “monkey selfie” case.
After years of court debating whether an animal can be a copyright holder, the photographer’s had enough. He says he’s on the verge of giving up. He is trying to become a tennis coach, and even considers dog walking so he can cover the income tax.
Julie Dermansky, a New Orleans-based photojournalist, is suing Trump Organization for using her photo without permission. They used the photo on their website, as well as on the president’s Instagram page, where it gained almost 28,000 likes. Apparently, they didn’t either request the photographer’s permission or gave her credits. So, she is seeking $150,000 damages and a court trial, claiming that Trump Org. illegally profited off her work.
This little saga started a couple of months ago, but now the US International Trade Commission (ITC) has opened an official patent infringement investigation. Reuters reports that the ITC launched the probe on Friday into Nikon digital cameras, software and components. This comes in response to complains filed against Nikon by Carl Zeiss and ASML.
Of course, Nikon started this fight, filing lawsuits against Zeiss and ASML back in April. They accused the two companies of using Nikon’s patended lithography technology without permission or licenses. Several days later, both Zeiss and ASML filed their own countersuits claiming Nikon had their technogy inside Nikon’s digital cameras.
We’re still in shock after hearing that Lily Robotics is shutting down, but apparently this isn’t all. The crash of the Lily Drone is even worse than we imagined.
They are also facing a lawsuit by San Francisco district attorney’s office for false advertising and unfair business practices. And apparently, their promotional video was not even made by the drone they were promoting.
Dear photographers, please always have people sign model releases if you plan to sell photos of them. Let this recent lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill can be a reminder for you.
Leah Caldwell was enjoying her meal at a Chipotle restaurant in 2006 when a photographer Steve Adams took a photo of her. She didn’t know he was shooting. As she was leaving the restaurant, Steve asked her to sign a release, which she refused. What the photographer and Chipotle did later was unethical and illegal. And it eventually ended up pretty harmful for them.
It almost feels like GoPro have gone into some kind of self-destructive downward spiral. Since hitting their peak near the end of 2014, GoPro’s share prices have taken plunge after plunge. They received a little bump with the announcement of the Karma, which immediately dropped back down after the recall was announced.
Now, it seems, that if GoPro have to suffer, then so do everybody else. In this passionate video from YouTuber Devin Graham (aka Devinsupertramp), he explains that GoPro are threatening to sue accessory make GoScope. Firstly, they don’t like the use of the word “Go” in their name. They’re also demanding they change all their moulds, too. Presumably under some sort of alleged design infringement.
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.