Most meetings are happening via video call platforms nowadays. And where there’s video, there are video effects. Sometimes they appear in the most inappropriate situations, and this is exactly what recently happened in Texas. When a Zoom court hearing began, one of the lawyers appeared looking like a cute, sad, little cat thanks to a filter he accidentally turned on.
When you’re out in public, you can’t expect much privacy (in spite of “Karens” like this and this who would disagree). However, this might change soon, at least under some circumstances. Tennessee lawmakers and the Sullivan County District Attorney’s Office have proposed a bill that would make “embarrassing” and “offensive” nonconsensual photos illegal and punishable by law.
No this is not a satirical article – this really happened. A grandma from the Netherlands posted photos of her grandchildren to Facebook and Pinterest without their parents’ permission. After a fallout with her daughter about it, the whole thing ended up in court. The judge ruled that the matter falls under EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), so they ordered the grandmother to take the photos down.
A 40-year-old-man who was following women and photographing them was recently freed from all charges despite the fact that he pointed his camera at their breasts and buttocks. According to appeals court judges, what he did wasn’t illegal because it was done in public places.
Karen Hepp, a news anchor at Fox 29 News, is suing Facebook, Reddit, Imgur, and several other websites for “abhorrent and disgusting” uses of her photo. Reportedly, a security camera snapshot of Hepp ended up online, and it was used in dating and erectile dysfunction ads, as well as in sexualized context on other websites.
Back in June 2017, a photo of Donald Trump crashing a wedding at his golf course resort went viral. Jonathan Otto took the photo, shared it with a wedding guest, and it quickly got all over the internet – and ended up in the media. After Otto found it out, he filed a lawsuit. And recently, the court ruled that media using a snapshot from someone’s social network doesn’t constitute a fair use.
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 US Supreme Court has ruled that online retailers will have to collect sales taxes from now on. For photographers and videographers, this means you no longer will be able to buy cheaper, tax-free gear from online retailers like B&H or Adorama.
Back in January, Canon Italia posted a photo without credit (and shot on a Fuji) on their Instagram and Facebook. The response from the community was fierce, and Canon’s response only made things worse. Now Elia Locardi, the photographer behind the original photo, has decided to take the case to court.
This is one of those stories you couldn’t make up if you tried. Most people, especially content creators, such as those with YouTube followings of 60K+ people know that much of the Internet is copyrighted. That just because an image appears in a Google Images search result does not mean that it’s free to use. It’s just plain common sense. At least, one would think so.
But YouTuber and Internet “entrepreneur” (that word is so overused these days), Dan Dasilva had to learn this the hard way. After stealing a photographer’s work, the photographer, the legal copyright owner, sued him and won. Dan, though, seems to believe he’s the victim n all this. The victim of a “malicious” photographer.