If you see a photo freely available online and want to reuse it – you have to ask the photographer for the permission. Some would say this is a common knowledge, right? But the European Court of Justice has recently made this a ruling after a case of copyright infringement. And it all started as a high school student’s presentation.
The U.S. Postal Service has recently been ordered to pay $3.5M for a pretty strange case of copyright infringement. They have mistakenly used a photo of the wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp. Instead of using a photo of the original statue, the U.S. Post used a photo of Robert Davidson’s Las Vegas replica, which resulted in a lawsuit.
Singapore photographer and Sony Ambassador Daryl Aiden Yow was recently busted for sharing stock photos and other people’s work as his own. Yow is particularly popular on Instagram, with 104K followers at the moment of writing this and plenty of gorgeous photos. But as it was revealed that the photos aren’t his, the story went viral and even Sony responded to it.
In the era of the internet, it’s not at all uncommon to find your photos used by someone else without your permission. This happened to Edward Kelly of Marlton, New Jersey, who found his selfie used in an ad. On Pornhub. To make things even worse, it seems that the ad has been on the largest pornography website for at least six years. So, when discovering this, Kelly decided to file a lawsuit against Pornhub, seeking more than $3 million in damages and compensation for the use of his photo.
In the face of breaking news, smartphones have made everyone a frontline reporter, and social media has allowed users to become self-publishers. However, with a rare exceptions, most news content still relies on traditional media for mass distribution. Junior producers at large news gathering organizations often attempt to obtain licensing rights directly from individuals via social media for photo and video that might not be available through wire services like AP, Reuters and AFP.
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.
Copyright infringement is all too common these days. It seems especially so in the music industry. One would think that fellow creatives, like musicians, would understand copyright and know better. But it turns out that they often don’t. Typically, when the photographer contacts them about it, the ensuing conversation is quite amicable. The images are taken down, or credited, and occasionally a fee is paid.
In this instance, however, not so much. When concert photographer Adrienne Row-Smith recently discovered some of her photos were being used by the band and its record label, she reached out. And while the band were being quite pleasant about the whole situation, their record label most certainly was not. DIYP reached out to Adrienne to find out more.
Copyright and intellectual property law are the foundations of the photography industry and all other creative business.
However, it is shocking how misunderstood (and strangely controversial) copyright and intellectual property law are among photographers and other creative professionals.
What is even worse is the amount of misinformation there is online when it comes to copyright and your intellectual property rights as a creative professional and content creator.
In this article, DIYP sits down for a Q&A session with Pixsy (a global leader in pursuing monetary compensation for copyright infringement on behalf of creative professionals) to answer 20 things photographers must know about copyright and intellectual property law.
I guess we all know the viral Grumpy Cat, the spirit animal of many of us (especially on Monday mornings). In 2015, a beverage company used Grumpy Cat’s name and image without a license, and the kitty’s owner Tabatha Bundesen decided to file a lawsuit. On Monday, the court ruled in her favor and she was awarded $710,001 in damages.