I believe that you have heard of BuzzFeed, a news and entertainment company based on digital content. They also run a few Facebook groups on different topics, and in one of them, nearly 150,000 members are explicitly forbidden to tag credit photographers when sharing their work.
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.
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.
Everywhere you look in the tech scene at the moment ‘blockchain’ and ‘ICO’ are the hot topics.
Investors are throwing millions of dollars to anyone that posts a quick website and publishes a vague white paper related to the topic.
Blockchain copyright protection may seem like a bulletproof solution for creative professionals to secure the use of their work online – but is blockchain really the answer to the current state of rampant global copyright infringement and abuse of intellectual property law?
In this article, Pixsy Chief Operating Officer (COO) Kain Jones offers his insight on the blockchain hype and some reasons why blockchain copyright protection might not be the silver bullet creative professionals, photographers and artists are looking for.
In most cases, Pixsy’s team of licensing experts and global network of law firms are effective in recovering monetary compensation for unauthorized use of a photographer’s work without the need to actually sue or go to court.
A strongly worded letter from a lawyer and the expertise to follow it up are usually all that is required.
However, in some cases the infringing party refuses to pay – or simply ignores Pixsy’s efforts to negotiate a settlement.
The next step is a lawsuit – but this brings up an interesting issue: is it ethical to sue over copyright infringement?[Read More…]
Famous model Gigi Hadid is being sued for copyright infringement. Last week, Photographer Peter Cepeda filed a lawsuit against her because she posted his photo of her on Instagram without his permission. She allegedly ripped the photo from a news outlet, removed the credit byline, and posted the photo to her profile. By doing this, she violated the copyright law, so Cepeda and his agency INF decided to file a lawsuit.
Italy-based photojournalist Matilde Gattoni recently got the result of her lawsuit against clothing retailer Tibi. Now that the judge has made the decision, it may be of interest for all photographers.
While copyright registration of Gattoni’s photo in the US was still in progress, Tibi changed her photo and posted it on their Instagram page. After she sued for copyright infringement and violation of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the court dismissed the charges of copyright infringement.
An Oregon based plant retailer has been awarded $900,000 in actual damages by federal jury over a copyright claim. Or they’ve been awarded $300,000 in statutory damages. It’s recipient’s choice. They can have one, but not both. I would imagine they’ll probably go for the $900K. The case revolves around the unauthorised use of 24 images created by Under a Foot Plant Co. president, Frances White.
Under a Foot Plant Co., owns a product line of plants called “Stepables“. These are a range of plants that can be walked upon. A series of images were created to promote these products. In 2014 they sued Maryland based Exterior Design over taking and using these images to promote their own line, “Treadwell Plants” on the web, posters and in brochures.