It was more than once that Gigi Hadid was sued for using a photo of herself without permission or crediting the photographer. The famous model’s legal team claims that she’s totally entitled to it. They say that her using a paparazzi photo of herself constitutes fair use because she contributed to the photo with her smile and outfit.
When we think of either paparazzi or spy cameras, I believe most of us wouldn’t connect them with the late 19th century. Photographer and scientist Carl Størmer (1874 – 1957) had an unusual and controversial hobby at the time. He was only nineteen years old when he walked around Oslo with a spy camera hidden underneath his vest. He was secretly taking photos of famous men and women of the time. because of this, he is sometimes referred to as “Norway’s first paparazzi.”
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.
Unlike some previous French presidents, Emmanuel Macron demanded privacy while on vacation. However, this didn’t prevent a paparazzi photographer to stalk him around Marseillee. He even entered the president’s private property to take the photos, which was the last drop. After this, Macron reported him to the authorities, and he has filed a legal complaint.
I don’t normally care what the Kardashians do. This current suit being brought against Khloe Kardashian, however, highlights something rather important. It’s something often misunderstood by clients, celebrities, and the general public alike. Just because you appear in a photograph does not mean that you have the legal right to use it.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, “KoKo” apparently hasn’t heard this rather important fact before. It’s not uncommon knowledge that celebrities have a love-hate relationship with the paparazzi. But regardless of what you might think some of their ethical standards, their rights still stand. Including Copyright. Kardashian is being sued by UK based photo agency, Xposure Photos.
It’s a neat idea. Anti-paparazzi clothing. Clothes that makes photographing you a fruitless exercise. The idea first came up at the beginning of last year, when Chris Holmes came up with the Anti-Paparazzi Collection. This recently popular version has been made by ISHU.
It’s a fairly simple concept, that works on exactly the same principles as signs on the highway that shine bright in your car’s headlights, or Hi-Vis clothing to help cyclists and pedestrians be seen when out in the dark. For those applications, it works brilliantly.
Just three days after California Governor rejected several drone-related bills, the Los Angeles Times reports that Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation intended to protect the rich and famous from the prying eyes of the paparazzi.
Bill AB 856 expands privacy protections by changing the definition of a “physical invasion of privacy” to include a drone invading the airspace above private property in order to record video, sound or capture photographs.
Violators of the new law will face fines ranging from $5,000 to $50,000.
Several readers and many people I spoke with were unimpressed by the anti-paparazzi clothing we covered last month.
The most common response was “I’ll believe it when I see it”. Well, it’s time to start believing.
The fabric used in this line of clothing is embedded with glass nanospheres that reflect light and therefore mess up the exposure of photos taken with a flash.
However, its main feature might also be its weak spot.
The singer’s lawyers have requested to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by paparazzo Walter Lee who claims he was hit by Bieber’s Ferarri back in 2013, arguing it was Lee’s fault.
A video of the incident leaves some doubt as to the paparazzo’s claims and will kind of make you hate anyone holding a camera.
Meanwhile, Bieber tried avoiding a visit to the courthouse in another paparazzi-related lawsuit, claiming it would be too expensive for him to show up.