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 2014, photographer Lawrence Schwartzwald sent 49 prints to German publisher Steidl, hoping to publish them as a book. When he requested the return of his prints, it turned out that the publisher had lost them. After extensive litigation, a German court has still ordered Steidl to return the prints to the photographer.
It looks like the entertainment and fashion industry will remember 2017 by numerous accusations of sexual harassment. After Terry Richardson, fashion photographer Bruce Weber has joined the group of the alleged sexual offenders. As The New York Post reports, model Jason Boyce has sued Weber for sexual harassment that he claims occurred in December 2014. Boyce was 28 at the time, while Weber was 68.
Basia Vanderveen from Ottawa sued Waterbridge Media for recording her while she was jogging along the river in Westboro. She has won the lawsuit, and according to the video company, the court’s decision will have “a chilling effect on the media industry.
The two-second clip appeared in a promotional video for Bridgeport condominium. When a friend told her that she appeared in it, Vanderveen sued because the footage of her had been used without her consent.
Last year, photographer Howard Kennedy got under fire because of a nude photoshoot inside the 17th century Craigievar Castle. The National Trust for Scotland (NTS), who owns the castle, started an investigation after revealing the nude photos Kennedy shot inside of it. However, the photographer has now decided to fight back. Reportedly, he is suing NTS for damaging his personal reputation and seeks £50,000 in libel damages.
Most of us have posted childhood photos of ourselves on social networks. However, singer Bruno Mars is facing a lawsuit for doing it. Photographer Catherine McGann is reportedly suing the singer for posting the photo of himself, which she took back in 1989.
At last year’s Photokina, Fujifilm announced their new Instant Square Film. Earlier this year, the hardware to go along with it started to come. First the Instax SQ10 hybrid instant camera, followed by the Instax Share SP-3 printer. Now, according to a report by World Intellectual Property Review, Fujifilm has filed a complaint against Polaroid over a dispute on square format instant prints.
The report says that Fujifilm have asked for declaratory judgement in US district court to clear the company of any wrongdoing after being accused of trademark infringement by PLR IP (brand licensor and marketer of IP rights for Polaroid instant cameras). The trademark in question is the white border around Fujifilm’s Instax Square images.
It seems like Apple’s always in the news for some alleged patent infringement. Or taking somebody else to court for it. Although, primarily that patent war has been going on between Apple and Samsung. Now, though, The Marker reports that Israel-based Corephotonics has entered the fray. They’ve filed a patent infringement case against Apple in US federal court.
The suit alleges that Apple have infringed their patent which covers dual camera technology. That this technology has already been incorporated into devices like the iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus without their authorisation.
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.