fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Jennifer Lopez sued for $150,000 after posting a photo of herself to Instagram

by 49 Comments

After Bruno Mars, Gigi Hadid and Rod Stewart, Jennifer Lopez is also being sued for allegedly using someone else’s photo without permission. After the pop star posted a photo of herself to Instagram, photographer Michael Stewart filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement, which could earn him up to $150,000 if he wins.

The Blast reports that Stewart took a photo of J. Lo earlier this year while she was walking through New York City, wearing a colorful shirt and white pants. He reportedly licensed the photo to the Daily Mail, who ran it in an article on their website this June. He reportedly also registered it with the United States Copyright Office. Judging from the screenshot, J. Lo posted the photo to an Instagram Story, and I couldn’t find the photo on her profile. Still, the photographer found it and decided to sue.

Ironically, the pop star added a caption to the photo reading “Today was a good day!!” Apparently, it wasn’t that good after all. According to TMZ, Stewart is suing both J. Lo and her production company, Nuyorican Productions, for copyright infringement. The same source reports that, in case he wins, he is entitled to up to $150,000 in damages.

I think this is a classic case of copyright infringement, in case that J. Lo hadn’t asked for permission or paid for the photo before posting it. But is it the case if the photo was on her page only for 24h, posted as a Story? I have no idea, to be honest. What do you think?

[via The Blast, TMZ; image credits: dvsross/Wikimedia Commons]

Related posts:

How Social Media Networks Enable Creative Content Theft IntroSocial Media Networks Don’t Give a Flying Fudge-Nugget About Your Copyright! Photographer sues model Gigi Hadid over unpermitted instagram post Media companies can’t use your social media photos without permission, court rules Tyra Banks uses unauthorized work on Instagram, deletes it after a rain of comments

  • No, He shouldn’t. He took a candid photo of her without permission and made money from it. As far as we can tell she didn’t claim to have taken it.

    • Yeah things are getting ridiculous… someone takes a Pic of you without consent, goes make money on it and then tries to take advantage of a situation to get even more money… even though she is a famous person she was “off duty” when the pic was taken.

    • Off duty and candid are not actually mentioned in copyright law surprisingly enough

    • Personal opinion, I agree. It’s not like he rented a location, paid a model and then someone stole the photo passing it off as their own. It’s a picture of her and the article says it was a “screenshot” on her story…

    • He doesn`t need her permission. They were in public, he took the photo. He owns the photo & licensed it. She took it without permission or payment. It doesn`t matter if it was a photo of herself, she stole it.

      • Paul Maka-Kea

        But the picture is of her regardless if in a public place. If he took a picture of a trash can behind Jlo do you think he will make any money at all. I hope they don’t pay him.

        • Drexel Hill Watch

          No, I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but you wouldn’t know that because you have ugly kids.

          • Paul Maka-Kea

            But your face looks like jlo assole is that the reason why its disguised haha

    • Google why Daniel Radcliffe wears the same jacket every day.

    • If_you_ask_me

      Bone up on the privacy laws before you start playing lawyer on the Internet. She has no expectation of privacy if she is in a public place. She “gave” permission by walking on a public street. End of story.

    • Kaouthia

      How is *HE* making money from it?

  • I don’t think he should win this case

    • why not?

    • Andras Oravecz it was street photography, and I don’t think he should benefit in this way. But I live in the UK, so laws and morals are maybe different

    • No they are not…it’s his image, his intellectual property and she has no right to use it without his permission at least. She posted the photo because she liked it and she posted it to make money through her growing instagram profile.

      • John

        It’s her likeness. It’s her “brand”. It is a civil offense (read “can result in a civil lawsuit”) to use a person’s likeness without that person’s permission. He should only ‘win’ if she knowingly posed for the photo, thus granting him permission. He would be MUCH better off asking for photographer credit on her Instagram page though.

    • Andras Oravecz but 150k is crazy. I don’t agree with that one little bit

      • Robert Williams

        The $150,000 is straight from US Copyright law, it’s what the US Government has decided that a single act of copyright infringement can be valued at.

        • Robert Williams

          It’s why back in the Napster days, the RIAA was going after individuals for millions of dollars at a time. I bet musicians didn’t think it was a bad number back then. :)

  • JOhn C

    Assuming his allegations are correct, he should win. She’s a celebrity and her Instagram page is basically marketing for her career. I’m reasonably sure if the photographer had used one of her songs in an ad, she would expect to be paid as well. Always strikes me how some artists (in whatever media) feel they should be paid for their work, but it’s okay to use another’s work without paying them.

  • Trino Pam

    USA is quite a horrible country where people sue each other in the hunt for easy cash, and the middle man (laywer) is there to facilitate and collect his pie slice.
    Worst society I’ve seen! So sad, so misable in Human Rights.

    • Kaouthia

      Yeah, you’re so right, people should just be able to rip off the work of photographers and use it how they want, right?

      • harvey

        and photographers should be able to photograph whomever they want where ever they can and sell those images for whatever purpose the end user wants to do with them. The argument works both ways.

        • Kaouthia

          No, photographers shouldn’t be able to photograph whomever they want and sell them for any purpose. That has nothing to do with copyright, though. Nor what’s happened here. So it’s not the same argument, and doesn’t go both ways.

          The same argument going both ways is why we can’t just rip of JLo’s crappy movies and then upload them to our YouTube channels. :)

          • harvey

            and every individual has the right to their person and the photog invaded that right to make money by selling his image. Argument works both ways.

          • Kaouthia

            1. Not in a public place.
            2. He wasn’t exploiting the image commercialy.
            3. IT WAS THE SUBJECT WHO WAS USING IT – I think she gave herself permission to use her own likeness.

            It’s a COMPLETELY different thing to copyright. It’s not the argument working both ways. It’s AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT!

            (Caps just to try and emphasise the point. I don’t need to “chill”. See? here’s a smiley. :) )

  • If it was a screenshot and, no money was made from it, it can be classified as fair use. File this under frivolous.

    • Kaouthia

      No money being made doesn’t automatically make it fair use. And money is being made, because she’s using it for marketing/promotion/PR (why do you think these people are even on Instagram?)

      • Xavier Red

        The article states Lopez commented on the photo (see also Prince, Richard). Courts have yet to rule on how little can be done to an image to qualify as “transformative”. It will be interesting to see what a judge eventually decides.

        Another standard applied when determining fair use is whether the market or value of the work is impacted. Do you believe the photo will be more in-demand or less after receiving a tacit endorsement from the celebrity whose image was pimped to the Daily Mail?

        Many Americans now favor more restrictive privacy laws in line with EU regulations after the numerous scandals at Facebook and other data breaches rather than to have strangers steal our identities and sell them back to us. If Lopez has an address in the EU, I wonder if she could file a complaint under GDPR (“right to be forgotten”) to demand that he delete all his photos of her?

        It will all play out in court unless there’s a settlement. Stewart may have the law on his side, but comments here won’t affect the courts. And his lawsuit is still sleazy and opportunistic.

    • Henry Rodgers no money was made from it directly, but she makes money with her instagram profile and she needs posts for that

    • For something like this, a defined dollar amount would need to be determined for the post itself.

  • Kazim

  • Morally speaking, he should not!

  • A

    Did he have permission or model release stating he could use the picture? Just curious cause a majority of time photographers have those so they can use them.

  • Jordan E.

    It sounds like he is a sleazy paparazi who makes the private lives of famous people miserable. J Lo’s body guard should have beaten him up and taken his camera then used the photos for instagram. Then his damages would be worth the $150k. How much did the Daily Mail pay for the photo, that would be a reasonable amount to request. But i guess the sleazy paparazi hired a sleazy lawyer.

  • Arthur_P_Dent

    The headline was misleading clickbait.

  • DJ Kassettenrekorder ®

    the photographer should be sued for publishing unautorized pictures and violation of the rights on personal images if he had not the permission to taking shots

    • Drexel Hill Watch

      Did you press the shutter? NO
      Did you spend countless hours learning proper exposure times, aperture and composition? NO
      The person who presses the button to take the picture automatically owns that picture under US copyright law.

      • DJ Kassettenrekorder ®

        Did you ever payed the star to get one?
        Taking and publishing pictures without permission is illegal.

        • Drexel Hill Watch

          No, it is not illegal. Not in the United States.

          • DJ Kassettenrekorder ®

            Drinking Alkohol in public is illegal there.. hahahaha

      • DJ Kassettenrekorder ®

        taking pictures is easy like making sandwiches, these, who did not understand to learn how works only 3 parameters, are idiots.

      • Paul Maka-Kea

        Dickhead did he ask Jlo if he could take a photo of her? Let me guess you gonna say but it was taken in a public place….so if i take photos of your kids and sell it would you ok with that? but but i took it in a public place.

      • gtrane

        LoL. I saw you at the MOMA show Drexel-

        With a Mop & Bucket…

  • Hammerhead

    I think she should get permission first before posting the picture. The photographer does own his own work. The problem is that this story doesn’t mention him sending a takedown notice to her – he just sued her for a lot of money. Makes him look like an opportunist. Unless there are more details we aren’t being told.

  • J LaBove

    It all depends, did he compensate her for taking her picture? Did he have a release to use her likeness?

  • gtrane

    Professional photography has put food on my table and gas in my car since 1978.

    It won’t be long before all rich and famous will be in control of their “likeness” just as creators are in control of their art.

    AND WHY SHOULDN’T THEY???!!!

    Then Shutterbugs like Michael Stewart will be doing something else instead of paparazzi.

  • Anita

    The picture us of her. So she should be able to do what she pleases. Did he ask her if he could take the photo

  • Ernest Bagehorn

    People just don’t understand the law under infringment laws if that picture is owned by someone she has no right to it so when she put it on instagram or facebook any public media then anyone out there can copy it and rerpost it adding no other comments to it

Recent Posts