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.
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.
We reported a while ago that the monkey selfie case could come to an end. And finally, this happened. After two years of court battle, David Slater, PETA and Slater’s co-defendant Blurb have reached a settlement. Slater has agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue from the famous selfies to charities that protect the habitats of crested macaques.
In February 2016, the Department of Labor sued B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. (or B&H Photo) for discrimination against multiple groups. A year and a half later, they have agreed to pay $3.22 million to settle the case.
As the Department of Labor writes, B&H states that they “employ an incredibly diverse group of people.” However, according to the lawsuit, this isn’t the case. B&H allegedly discriminated against Asian, black and female job seekers at the Brooklyn Navy Yard warehouse by hiring only Hispanic men into the entry-level jobs. Additionally, they were sued for paying their Hispanic employees less than white workers, and not offering them promotion to higher positions.
Do you remember the monkey selfie that went viral, and the ridiculous story that the monkey should hold the copyright to the photo? British nature photographer David Slater, who photographed the black macaque in 2011, ended up being broke. He considers switching his career, and he might just give it all up when it comes to the “monkey selfie” case.
After years of court debating whether an animal can be a copyright holder, the photographer’s had enough. He says he’s on the verge of giving up. He is trying to become a tennis coach, and even considers dog walking so he can cover the income tax.
Julie Dermansky, a New Orleans-based photojournalist, is suing Trump Organization for using her photo without permission. They used the photo on their website, as well as on the president’s Instagram page, where it gained almost 28,000 likes. Apparently, they didn’t either request the photographer’s permission or gave her credits. So, she is seeking $150,000 damages and a court trial, claiming that Trump Org. illegally profited off her work.