Photographers, if you register your work with the US Copyright Office, hurry up because the fees are about to increase. According to the official announcement, as of 20 March, you will pay more when you apply for copyright protection. And for some applications, the price is going to be up to six times higher than the current one.
It happens every once in a while that a celebrity gets sued for posting photos of themselves to Instagram without permission. And this time, it was supermodel Bella Hadid. The model reportedly shared a photo of herself to Instagram without the photographer’s permission, and he’s slapping her with a lawsuit in return.
The Smithsonian Institution has released an online gallery of 2.8 million images with more to come. The massive collection includes images and data from across the Smithsonian’s 19 museums, along with nine research centers, libraries, archives, and the National Zoo. And the best of all is: all photos are copyright-free and available for you to download and use.
Paul Teutul Sr., the star of the famous reality TV show “American Chopper,” has been sued by a photographer whose photo he used without permission. The judge has sided with the photographer, and the court has ordered Teutul to pay $258,484.45 for copyright infringement.
About a year ago now, the final language of the EU Copyright Directive was released. Its goal was for the “harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society”. But a couple of articles contained within the directive aren’t great, have been quite controversial and could have wide-reaching effects for photographers and filmmakers beyond the obvious.
Basically, the burden for online copyright theft with the new directive basically falls upon the company hosting the content, and not the user that put it there. This shifting of burden means that entire services may disappear overnight, or you suddenly find you can’t upload content to certain platforms because they’ve just blocked your country.
Lady Gaga tweeted a short “can y’all stop” message. Now, this message would have been a no-story unless it was accompanied by a photo of a masked girl wearing headphones. Headphones and a Shutterstock watermark.
Shutterstock replied to that tweet with a link to the image page on Shutterstock, a message about supporting the artist and a winking smiley: “.@ladygaga We hear you! We like artists to be paid for their work too. Here’s a link to the photographer’s work where you can license these quality images: shutterstock … and shutterstock … 😉”
If you’re a photographer and share your work on Instagram and other social networks, chances are someone will contact you to ask for a use of your photo. And when this happens, make sure to always read the fine print. Otherwise, you may give someone an unlimited usage of your work without being aware of it.
Last year, photographer Justin Goldman filed a lawsuit against several publications that featured someone’s embedded tweet with his copyrighted photo. The court ruled that this was, indeed, copyright infringement, so Goldman won the case. Now, he is looking to extend his victory and he is going for a few more news sites and blogs.
Madison Dube, a photographer working with Prince during the final years of his life, has filed a lawsuit against the late singer’s estate. She claims that the estate been using her work without a license. Therefore, she is suing the estate along with its “associated companies” for copyright infringement.
After Dr. Mitchell Pohl took photos of his patient’s teeth to showcase his work, he found his photo used without permission on several different websites. He filed a lawsuit, but Florida District Court ruled that his photos weren’t protectable by copyright laws because they lacked “creative spark.” But fortunately, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It ruled that “before/after” photos of teeth fall under copyright protection after all.