Can you imagine being charged thousands of dollars for using your own images? Neither can I, but this has recently happened to a renowned Chinese astrophotographer. Visual China Group (VCG) or “the Getty of China” accused Jeff Dai of copyright violation after he shared his own photos on social media. And for this “violation,” he might need to pay up to $12,000.
A Photographer is suing prominent cannabis website Leafly for unlawful use of his photographs of iconic rappers Snoop Dog and Tupac. According to sources, the lawsuit alleges that Leafly unlawfully published and displayed Monroe’s photography without his consent.
The heart of the dispute lies in an article about blunts, hollowed-out cigars filled with marijuana, according to Green Market Report. At the centre of the post was a side-by-side portrait featuring iconic rappers Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg. The caption accompanying the image suggested that Tupac taught Snoop the art of crafting blunts, which, in turn, led the rapper to smoke ten a day.
Two photographers have lost a copyright case against Instagram. The court recently ruled that embedding photos on third-party websites is not a copyright infringement. This might have implications for all photographers out there, and it’s also not the first time that a photographer lost to Meta in a similar case.
About a year ago, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) started accepting cases in the US. This is good news for you if you are a photographer or any other type of creator. This board provides a quick, less costly option for submitting Copyright claims in federal court. (Definitely smaller scale than this 228.9 million dollars copyright lawsuit)
While the court has been active for since June ’22, this is its first case was decided on February 28, 2023. It is a case discussing an unauthorized image use by a lawyer on his website. The final ruling was in favor of the photographer, though far from what he asked for. Here are the full details.
Stock photo platform Getty Images has sued Stability AI, the maker of AI image generator Stable Diffusion. Getty alleges that the tech company unlawfully scraped millions of copyrighted images that Getty owns or represents. As they reportedly never asked for permission to do so, Getty claims that Stability AI benefited commercially, while harming the artists whose work it used to train its AI.
Three artists have filed a copyright lawsuit against the creators of Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DreamUp, DeviantArt’s AI image generator. Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, and their attorney claim that these programs have infringed the copyright of “millions of artists” by training their algorithm on their work without permission.
The Midjourney founder recently admitted to using “hundreds of millions of images” without their authors’ consent to train the image generator’s AI. And now, his company and the two others could face legal consequences.
Celebrity photo agency Backgrid has sued Twitter over copyright infringement after users uploaded thousands of its photos on the social media platform. Twitter reportedly received DMCA takedown notices, but failed to take action, and it also reportedly failed to sanction “repeat infringers.” Because of this, if Backgrid wins, Twitter will have to pay a whopping $228.9 million!
A photographer has won a staggeringly high amount in a recent copyright dispute. The Los Angeles Federal courts awarded photographer Dennis Fugnetti $1.2 million for the use of a pigeon photo without permission.
Three years ago, Fugnetti filed the claim against anti-bird pest company Bird B Gone for using his image of a pigeon in flight for 12 years. The company sells spikes that are used to deter roosting pigeons and other birds from rooftops and balconies.
David Holz, the founder of Midjourney, recently admitted something we’ve already assumed: the company’s AI was trained on hundreds of millions of images without consent from their authors. This revelation has sparked outrage among both artists and privacy advocates. It has raised concerns about the ethical implications of such actions, as well as copyright issues that might emerge.