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.
In 2015, the city of Calgary commissioned artist Derek Michael Besant $20,000 CAD (around $15,500 USD) for a public exhibit. Two years later, the exhibition has been taken down because it turns out that Besant used copyrighted images without permission.
A traveler to Calgary noticed that one of the images in the installation resembled UK Comedian Bisha Ali. After Ali was notified, the deception began to unravel and the artist was exposed for fraud.
Queen guitarist Brian May recently faced an Instagram ban after he posted someone else’s image without the permission or credits. The ban seems to have made him pretty upset, so once his account was back – he bashed the photographer who took the photo.
According to May, the photographer named Barbara Kremer acted “rude” and “unfriendly” for reporting him to Instagram. What’s more, he even writes that he’ll be “tempted to have [her] thrown out” if she attends one of his concerts in future.
CBS Broadcasting has filed one of the most unusual lawsuits I’ve ever heard of. They are suing photojournalist Jon Tannen for copyright infringement because of the screenshots he posted on social media. The screenshots are from a 1958 episode of the TV series “Gunsmoke,” and CBS seeks $150,000 in damages.
The lawsuit from CBS came after Tannen sued them for using his images without permission. So, it looks like a “retaliatory strike,” as Ars Technica describes it.
We recently published the account of Internet “entrepreneur” Dan DaSilva who was successfully sued for $27,000 (plus $10,000 in court fees) by a photographer over copyright infringement (click here for the original article: Internet “Entrepreneur” Shocked that Copyright Owner Sued Him for Stealing their Work).
While most were quick to jump on Dan in a pretty negative group pile-on, one of the more interesting allegations that Dan makes is that he is really the victim of copyright trolling.
In this article, we will look at what exactly a copyright troll might be and why the internet might have been a little overzealous in it’s condemnation of Dan DaSilva.