fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

He Said No, Fox News Used His Images Anyway

by 11 Comments

Photo by Max Robinson (@DieRobinsonDie)

Over the weekend, Ellicott City, Maryland was pummeled by massive rainfall, which triggered devastating flash floods through the historic district of town. Resident Max Robinson was trapped in an apartment building near Main St and Maryland Ave when he started documenting what transpired on Twitter.

As the social media coordinator and journalist, Robinson was no stranger to social media norms and intellectual property rights. So when he received a request for free publication of his work on “Fox News Network, LLC &  Fox News Edge affiliates use on all platforms” in exchange for credit, he responded quickly and tersely.

But the request seems to have been perfunctory because Fox News used his content anyway.

The National Press Photographer Association’s General Counsel and photographer advocate Mickey Osterreicher didn’t take kindly to the blatant disregard, accurately pointing out that under U.S. Copyright Law 17 U.S. Code § 504, willful infringements can lead to statutory damages up to $150,000 per image.

Photographers started tweeting at Max Robinson to protect his IP and lawyer up. Even “copyright troll” Richard P. Liebowitz reached out.

Ever since Daniel Morel won a $1.2m judgement against AFP, media organizations have been weary of posting content found through social media. The practice of assigning a junior producer to acquire free rights through a tweet or DM is sadly still prevalent – particularly when it comes to breaking news – and is certainly not confined to Fox News. But the blatant use of Robinson’s photo/video after he specifically denied them permission has become pretty rare given the huge legal liability that it presents.

Statutory damages are only applied to content that has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. But content creators have up to 3 months to register their works after initial publication for infringements that occur prior to registration. Attorney Leslie Burns commented, “If one registers a work after the 3-month window, the one can still get statutory damages but ONLY for infringements that start (not just that are discovered but that actually start) after the registration.”

In other words, register your copyright.

About the Author

Allen Murabayashi is a graduate of Yale University, the Chairman and co-founder of PhotoShelter blog, and a co-host of the “I Love Photography” podcast on iTunes. For more of his work, check out his website and follow him on Twitter. This article was also published here and shared with permission.

Related posts:

Licensed or Not? A Closer Look at the Fox News Flood Footage Fiasco Copyright Symbol with Laptop ComputerCopyright – 20 Things Photographers Need To Know About Intellectual Property Law Photostealers, Please Take My Images Or Why It Sucks To Fight Copyright Infringements From Overseas Taylor Swift Supporting Copyright HoldersTaylor Swift Wants To Hold Tech Companies Responsible for Piracy

  • His response though. 😂👌
    Seriously uncool on Fox News’s part.

  • Well when he sues at least fox has money 😂

  • How did Fox get the material? Did posting his material on ‘Social Media’ abrogate his right to protect it? What are the protections for a photographer posting on a social platform that then redistributed the material world wide? Seems as though the horse had left the barn, without it’s being protected.

    • Posting on social media doesn’t allow people to just use your stuff willy nilly.

    • catlett

      How did Fox get the material? Irrelevant. Without an official release they can’t legally use it.

      Did posting his material on ‘Social Media’ abrogate his right to protect it? No

      What are the protections for a photographer posting on a social platform that then redistributed the material world wide? Exactly the same as if it wasn’t on a social platform. It doesn’t matter where the copyright holder has published it. They still hold the copyright.

      Seems as though the horse had left the barn, without it’s being protected. No. It just means that as in any other theft the legal owner has the right to pursue it and in this case will likely get a nice payday.

    • A shame how many people think that.

  • Muster Ham

    Fox got it from AP. All nice and legal.

  • jason bourne

    No surprise, being Fox News. They’re sleazy and corrupt from top to bottom.

  • Darren Cohen

    Wary, not weary! Internet, you suck sometimes.

  • Muster Ham

    The photographer gave or sold it to AP. Fox News bought it from AP. The photographer got everything he was entitled to and asked for, yet he still acuses Fox News of theft. Only one sleazy party here.

  • Sheila X

    Fox news is scum, but the attorney quoted here (Leslie Burns) is much worse. She’s a notorious copyright troll who has stolen tens of thousands of dollars from accidental infringers on behalf of stock art companies. Disgusting to see her quoted here!

Recent Posts