Photographer Sues Universal Music for Using his Photo of John Lennon

Allan Tannenbaum is an award-winning photographer. He is most well-known for taking photographs of the New York City art and music scene during the 1970s and into the early 1980s. Of his vast portfolio of photos, one, in particular, is now the subject of a copyright lawsuit. According to various websites such as digitalmusicnews.com and torrentfreak.com, Tannenbaum filed a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against Universal Music Group, Inc. (UMG) in New York District Court on May 23, 2019. Tannenbaum is represented in this case by The Sanders Law Group.

Iconic Photo of John Lennon is Subject of Copyright Lawsuit

The iconic photograph at the heart of the dispute is of John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono, which Tannenbaum took in 1980. It is an image captioned on his website with these words: “John Lennon cracks a joke while he and Yoko are nude in bed filming a video for ‘Just Like Starting Over’ in a SoHo studio, November 26, 1980.” Tannenbaum states in his complaint that he owns all of the rights to this photograph and that UMG violated his copyright by using the image without his permission.

UMG, the complaint alleges, publicly displayed the iconic, copyrighted photograph on one of its websites called udiscovermusic.com. The website published an article titled “John Lennon-Milk and Honey” alongside which were images of John and Yoko, including Tannenbaum’s picture described above. Udiscovermusic.com published the photograph notating Tannenbaum’s copyright. The article was published in 2015, but Tannenbaum did not discover copyright infringement until recently.

The Complaint Contains Allegations of Intentional Copyright Infringement

The complaint against UMG filed under section 501 of the US Copyright Act states that Tannenbaum is the author of the photograph. Furthermore, the complaint says that at all times, he has been the sole owner of all of the rights to the image, including copyright.

The complaint also alleges that,

Universal Music infringed Plaintiff’s copyright in the Photograph by reproducing and publicly displaying the Photograph on the Website,” the complaint notes.
Universal Music is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Photograph.
It further alleges that Universal’s actions were willful, intentional, and purposeful, in “disregard of and indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

If Tannenbaum’s copyright infringement lawsuit is successful, he may be entitled to recover actual damages and any profits UMG realized from its unlawful use of the copyrighted photograph of John and Yoko. Alternatively, because his copyright is registered with the US copyright office, he may be entitled to statutory damages of up to $150,000.

Federal Copyright Law Protects Photographers

Copyright law is in place to protect photographers from unauthorized use of their work. Copyright bestows upon photographers the sole right to determine when, where and how their work is displayed, and by whom. It is up to each individual photographer to decide on whether to grant a license to use their image, demand payment for a picture, or turn it over for public use. When a business or a person reproduces a photograph you took, you may have the right to file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Contact our Copyright Lawyers for Help

Contac Sanders Law Group if you are a photographer with concerns about copyright infringement. If your rights have been violated, call us today.

Sources:

• https://torrentfreak.com/award-winning-john-lennon-photographer-sues-universal-music-for-150000-190523/
• https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/05/24/allan-tannenbaum-v-umg/
• https://torrentfreak.com/images/119-cv-04750-tannenbaum-v-UMG-complaint.pdf

Photographer Sues Clorox for Using Photos in Ways that are “Beyond the Scope” of Their Agreement

Jill Greenberg is a photographer known for animal portraits. Her book “Monkey Portraits: Plus a Few Apes” is a New York Times bestseller. In an article posted on AdAge.com, Jack Neff writes that one of her famed photos is now the subject of a lawsuit. Greenberg, on April 16, 2019, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Dentsu/McGarryBowen and Clorox Co. The lawsuit alleges that these businesses infringed on her copyright by using photographs in ways that were beyond the scope of their agreement.

According to Neff, McGarryBowen contracted with Greenberg to create a series of portraits showing cats walking and playing on top of some clear glass. The images were to be part of an advertising campaign for Fresh Step kitty litter. The purchase order for the pictures, Neff states in his post, was filed with Greenberg’s court documents. The agreement permits a wide range of uses of the photographs in print format, for a period of two years. The purchase order “excludes use of the photos in video, though it allows a wide range of uses in print, out of home, product packaging, and retail display.” According to the purchase agreement, Greenberg received for the images $115,450, plus over $80,000 in expenses.

Photographer’s Complaint Claims That Showing Her Work as Art Violated her Copyright

Greenberg alleges that Dentsu/McGarryBowen and Clorox used the photographs in ways that went beyond the scope of the agreement, breaching their contract and infringing on her copyright. She told AdAge that the parties never discussed using the photographs at pop-up art galleries in New York and California, which is where they ended up. Fresh-Step used the images from the ads as part of a show to promote cat adoption. Greenberg told Neff “In my 27 or 28 years of shooting advertising images, it never crossed my mind that my kitty litter ads would be put up on the wall of a Chelsea gallery and referred to as fine art photography.”

Lawsuit Lists Several Alleged Copyright Violations Devalued Her Work

Greenberg’s complaint alleges that there were several infringements on her copyright when Clorox or Dentsu/McGarryBowen “controlled and arranged interviews and content” that used Greenberg’s copyrighted work for local TV news broadcasts, the “Ellen” show” and more. Specific allegations of copyright infringement in Greenberg’s complaint include:

• Paying influencers to post videos with her copyrighted pictures from the pop-ups
• Showing the copyrighted photographs on an episode of the “Ellen DeGeneres Show.”
• Arranging for video and pictures to air on the news in New York and California
• Distributing the copyrighted photos as downloadable art or mobile wallpaper to reward members of Fresh Step’s Paw Points loyalty program.
• Hosting live-streaming videos of the cats on glass pop up galleries

Greenberg claims that violating her rights significantly devalued the worth of her photographs and “confused the market” with regards to her brand. She asks that the court grant injunctive relief, along with statutory damages, licensing fees, actual damages, profits, and costs.

Photographers Use Copyright Laws to Protect and Control the Use of their Pictures

The purpose of copyright is to ensure photographers retain control over the reproduction, display, and other uses of their work. A for-hire contract that allows the “employer” to use the images does not automatically mean the photographer surrenders ownership rights. Copyright stays with the owner unless an agreement explicitly says otherwise. If the images get used in ways that are beyond the scope of the agreed-upon terms, copyright infringement may result.

Contact Our Copyright Infringement Lawyers for Help

If you are a photographer and your images are being used in violation of a license, for-hire, or other types of contract contact the Sanders Law Group for help. You can reach our copyright lawyers at 516-233-1660.

Sources:

• https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/famed-photographer-sues-mcgarrybowen-and-clorox-copyright-infringement/2165741

Paparazzo Sues Ariana Grande for Copyright Infringement

Ariana is no stranger to copyright lawsuits. Earlier this year, painter Vladimir Kush sued her for infringement alleging she used imagery from his art in her “God is a Woman” video. Now, New York-based paparazzo Robert Barbera is suing Ariana Grande for copyright infringement. Barbera alleges that Grande violated his copyright when she posted a picture of herself, taken by him, to her Instagram account. Sanders Law Group represents the photographer in this case.

As reported by Forbes on May 14, 2019, Barbera claims that Grande used two of his photos on Instagram without his permission on August 17, 2018. The pictures at issue are of Grande leaving a building while carrying a bag displaying the word “Sweetener.” Sweetener is the name of her album which was released on the day she posted the photographs. The caption read “Happy Sweetener Day.”

Photographer Accuses Grande of Using His Pictures-Without Permission-to Promote Her Album

In court documents filed in New York District Court, Southern District, Barbera claims that the photographs at the time of posting were registered with the US copyright office. He also alleges that Grande used the copyrighted photos, which received over 3 million likes, specifically to promote her album and entice followers to purchase it. Barbera is suing for “either the profits Grande earned from the post or $25,000 in damages for each photograph.”

The complaint states,

[Grande] infringed [Barbera’s] copyright in the Photographs by reproducing and publicly displaying the Photographs on the Instagram Page,” the lawsuit states.

[Grande] is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Photographs.

Photographers Fight for Their Intellectual Property Rights

Being the subject of a photograph does bestow an automatic right to use it on social media or elsewhere. As celebrities are quickly learning, photographers will not sit quietly by while they profit from the hard work of the men and women who capture their images. Photographers, like all professionals, deserve to receive compensation for the work they create, even if it means fighting for it in a court of law.

Ariana Grande joins the list of other celebrities, whom photographers are holding accountable for violating their copyrights. Recently, Khloe Kardashian, Gigi Hadid, J.Lo, and more have been accused of copyright infringement for posting photographs to social media without permission, license, or payment. Most of these cases have settled out of court in favor of the photographers. The result of Grande’s most recent legal battle remains to be seen.

Contact Sanders Law Group if you are a photographer and someone is using your images without your permission. 516-233-1660

Sources:

• https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6002322-1.html#document/p2
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2019/05/14/ariana-grande-hit-with-lawsuit-for-posting-paparazzi-photo-of-herself/#67f75ac94f39

Company Suing Gigi Hadid Faces Possible Dismissal of Case

In January 2019, supermodel Gigi Hadid became the defendant in a lawsuit for copyright infringement. She was sued by Xclusive-Lee, Inc., a New York business, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. (Case No 1:19-cv-00520).

In a recently published article from Forbes, we are reminded that the complaint against Hadid contained allegations that Hadid “copied and uploaded” a copyrighted photograph to her own social media account “without license or permission.” Hadid subsequently removed the picture from her Instagram account. Before doing so, however, more than one and a half million people “liked” it. In its complaint, Xclusive-Lee, Inc. asked the court to award statutory damages, attorney’s fees, an injunction and any “realized profits” as allowed by the Federal Copyright Act.

Attorney Alleges That Complaint Fails to Show Copyright Ownership

The Forbes article also provides us with an update on the case. Hadid’s lawyer is preparing to ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit. In a letter to Judge Pamela K. Chen, the attorney outlines the arguments he plans to pursue in support of his request. Hadid’s lawyer contends that Xclusive-Lee did not hold a valid copyright at the time it filed its complaint and that it fails to name the photographer who created the picture.

This lawsuit, at its core, is not unusual. Photographers across the county have filed federal claims against celebrities for using pictures of themselves in violation of copyright law. Copyright cases involving photography often contain similar allegations and legal issues. Many photographers have succeeded in collecting monetary damages from celebrities who use pictures without permission, even when the images are of themselves.

Photograph Posted on Instagram: Hadid’s Lawyer Cites “Fair Use” Defense

For photographers following this case, the most interesting and possibly concerning legal argument by Hadid’s lawyer may be that, even if the Judge decides that Xclusive-Lee holds a valid copyright, Hadid’s use of the photograph in question falls under “fair use.” Using the picture as Hadid did, her attorney claims, does not violate copyright law. A decision in Hadid’s favor could make it easier to for celebrities to use images of themselves without permission from or payment to the photographers who work hard to capture their images.

The four elements of fair use that the court considers in copyright cases involving photographs are:

1. The purpose and character of the use of the photo- was it for commercial purposes? If so, it is more likely to violate the law.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work- Was the photographer trying to convey ideas, emotions, or influence the subject’s expression or pose? If so, it is more likely to be an infringement.
3. How much of the work was used? Was it a small part of a larger photo? The more of the original is central; the more likely the court will rule that it is infringing on a copyright.
4. Finally, what effect did the use of the photo have on the market? The value of the picture? Profits for the company? The more impact, the more it may be a violation.

It is More Important Than Ever For Photographers to Protect Their Copyrighted Work

What will the court’s decision mean for paparazzi and photographers who take pictures of celebrities for a living? Whether Hadid’s attorney is successful in having the case dismissed may have serious ramifications. One clear thing, however, is that if you are a photographer, it is more important than ever to protect your copyrighted material and your right to control the use of your work.

Contact Us for Help Protecting Your Copyright. You can reach our copyright attorney at Sanders Law Group by calling 516-233-1660.

Sources:

• https://www.scribd.com/document/404978178/Gigi-Hadid-s-attorney-s-letter-in-Xclusive-Lee-copyright-infringement-case
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellekaminsky/2019/04/04/gigi-hadid-wants-court-to-toss-copyright-infringement-claim-over-instagram-photo/#76e99d4420a1

EU Passes controversial copyright law that will hold websites responsible for their users’ copyright violations.

The Hollywood Reporter posted a story in late March describing a highly controversial copyright law recently passed by the European Parliament. It is called the European Union (EU) Copyright Directive and serves to “overhaul copyright law in Europe,” bringing the laws up to speed with the age of the Internet. The new legislation which has been years in the making will “make online companies responsible for copyright infringement on their sites.”

The Parliament moved the legislation forward with “348 votes for and 274 against.” The European Council must still approve the law.

Those in Favor of the EU Copyright Directive Sing its Praises.

With the rise of the Internet, social media and so much sharing of content, copyright infringement laws have become more challenging to enforce. The lines of ownership have become harder to delineate. Leading up to the new legislation, the Reporter states that “associations representing content creators — writers, directors, actors, and musicians — as well as many large traditional media companies, largely supported the legislation, saying it will provide fair compensation for copyright holders and help fight online piracy.” Some say this law is long overdue.

Gadi Oron, director-general of a large royalty collection firm in Europe stated,

“The European Union has laid the foundation for a better and fairer digital environment – one in which creators will be in a stronger position to negotiate fair license fees when their works are used by big online platforms.”

Artists, directors, and writers in Europe can look forward to additional protections including the right to claim “additional, appropriate, and fair remuneration,” if their work generates more revenue than expected at the time of contract. This will allow them to share in more profits should their work result in more money than anticipated.

Opposition to the EU Copyright Directives Fear Censorship

Opposition to the stricter copyright law, as expected, came mainly from ordinary users and giants such as “Facebook and YouTube” that are afraid their business models will be in jeopardy because of the stricter rules for liability and the costs associated with the new legislation. Julia Reda, a vocal opponent of the new directive, calls passage of the legislation, “a dark day for internet freedom.” Complaints against the legislation include the belief that the link-tax it will impose on digital websites will result in increased online censorship. Some also fear the new costs will unfairly favor larger, established media sites and harm smaller, non-profit ones.

EU Approval is Pending

As stated above, the European Council must still put its stamp of approval on the legislation. After that, individual countries that are members of the EU have two years and tremendous flexibility to implement the new Copyright Directive. The real challenges, according to the Reporter, will come during this phase adding, “This local focus is where lobbyists, activists, and business interests will now focus their efforts, as they try to get the most advantageous interpretation of the EU directive.” What the new copyright directive will work in practice once it is implemented may vary from country to country.

Contact Us

Sanders Law Group represents creative artists, writers, photographers, designers, and others who are interested in protecting and enforcing their intellectual property rights. For a free consultation of your copyright case, contact us at 516-233-1660.

Sources:

• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/european-parliament-approves-controversial-copyright-law-1197050

Visual Artist Sues Arianna Grande for Copyright Infringement

Artist Vladimir Kush and his company Kush Fine Arts Las Vegas have filed a federal copyright suit against Arianna Grande. The complaint, filed in Nevada, alleges that Grande’s video for her hit song “God is a Woman” contains images that belong to the artist. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and a court order to remove the video, which has already been viewed nearly 200 million times, from the internet. The Defendants include Grande, Universal Music Group, and the director, and producer of the video.

What Does the Law Say About Copyright?

Federal Copyright laws provide artists, photographers, writers, and other creative people, to receive protection for their original works. A copyright, which bestows a property right on work the minute someone creates it. For example, a photographer has a photograph as soon as he or she takes a picture. A sculptor has a copyright when his or her sculpture is made. The rights are exclusive unless, and until, the copyright holder issues a license or grants permission to a user. Registering a copyright can be an important part of filing a lawsuit and collecting damages when someone uses your work without permission.

In the case of an artist such as a painter, hard work goes into creating unique and creative visual artwork. You would not want an individual to take a photo of your painting, make posters, and sell them for profit – leaving you out of the equation. Should you decide, you can grant someone a license to reproduce your artwork and receive appropriate compensation for it.

Factors Under Consideration in Copyright Infringement Cases-Is It Fair Use?

The court considers several factors in deciding whether someone violates a copyright.

1. The purpose and nature of the use (For instance, is it for commercial use or educational purposes)
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The portion used in relationship to the copyrighted work taken as a whole
4. The effect of the use on the potential market value of the copyrighted work

Using the above guidelines, the court will determine if the use of your copyrighted artwork falls within the “fair use” exception to intellectual property rights. Fair use acts to balance the need for copyright protection with the need for the public to freely exchange information and knowledge.

Did Arianna Grande Violate Copyright Law?

According to USA Today, Kush’s complaint alleges that about one minute into the video, an image appears that is “nearly identical to paintings that Kush painted and copyrighted in 1999 and 2000.” The image is that of a “woman in a candle flame” which Kush claims copies his Candle and Candle II paintings.

The outcome of this case remains to be seen. As of this posting, the video is still on the internet and people continue to watch it. Is the image similar to the copyrighted paintings? Is Grande using this image for commercial gain? Has the use of it diminished the value of Kush’s artwork? The court will have to take these things into consideration when deciding if Grande and her team owe compensation to Kush for copyright infringement.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyer

Sanders Law Group assists artists, photographers and creative individual to protect their intellectual property rights. Call our office at 516-233-1660 to find out how we can help you.

Sources:

• https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8496534/ariana-grande-sued-artist-god-is-a-woman-video
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2019/02/04/artist-sues-ariana-grande-over-image-woman-in-candle-flame/2774184002/

Gigi Hadid Sued For Copyright Infringement Again

Gigi Hadid, supermodel, fashionista, and influencer, is the latest celebrity to be accused of using pictures without permission. According to a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Xclusive-Lee, Inc., the Defendant, Hadid violated its copyright when she posted a photograph of herself to one of her social media feeds.

The case, as reported in a January 2019 Forbes article, stems from an incident that occurred in October 2018. Hadid, whose full name is Jelena Noura Hadid, as she often does, copied and uploaded a picture of herself to Instagram. In the lawsuit filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District of New York, Xclusive-Lee alleges that Hadid copied and posted the photo which belongs to them, without a “license or permission” thus, violating copyright laws.

Hadid subsequently deleted the photo from her Instagram account, but not before, according to the Plaintiff, the damage was done. More than 1.5 million people liked the picture and presumably millions more viewed it. No one knows how many people copied and reposted the photo or used it for other purposes.

Lawsuit Alleges Hadid Willfully and Intentionally Violated Copyright Laws

Xclusive-Lee alleges in the lawsuit that Hadid’s violation of its copyright was both intentional and willful. The company claims that she knew to post photos to her social media account without permission violated the law. How did she know? Because Hadid was the defendant in a lawsuit filed in 2017 by Peter Cepeda alleging nearly the same facts. In that matter, Hadid copied, uploaded and posted copyrighted photos of herself to various social media accounts without permission from Cepeda who held the rights to the pictures. The parties settled the matter out of court.

According to the Forbes article, Xclusive-Lee is seeking an injunction, statutory damages and any profits that resulted from the picture’s publication. The company claims, according to the lawsuit complain that Hadid has published at least 50 copyrighted photographs to her Instagram account without any permission or license from the parties who hold the rights.

What Does Copyright Law Say?

The law is clear: copyright holders retain exclusive rights to use and display their work. If Hadid continues to use photos, even photos of herself, without permission, she may find herself on the losing end of more copyright infringement lawsuits. What are the issues that may arise in this, or any copyright infringement case?

• Does Xclusive-Lee hold a valid copyright?
• Did Hadid have permission or a license to use the photos?
• Did she violate the terms of a license?
• Did someone profit from the use of the picture?

Celebrities are bound to copyright laws just like everyone else, even when the images are of themselves. If someone uses your copyrighted photographs of them without your permission, you may have the right to collect monetary damages for copyright infringement.

Contact Sanders Law Group today at 516-233-1660 if you think you have a copyright infringement claim.

Sources:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellekaminsky/2019/01/29/gigi-hadid-sued-over-unauthorized-publication-of-paparazzi-photo-on-instagram/
• https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Gigi-Hadid.pdf
• https://www.scribd.com/document/398500491/X-clusive-Lee-Inc-v-Gigi-Hadid

Photographer Sues Jennifer Lopez For Copyright Infringement

Jennifer Lopez is the latest person to join a growing list of celebrities who find themselves defendants in lawsuits filed by photographers. According to an article on diyphotography.net, Michael Stewart is suing Lopez and her production company for copyright infringement.

The Facts of The Case

Dunja Djudjic reported on diyphotography.net that Stewart is a photographer. As part of his work, he took a photograph of Lopez out walking in New York City. Stewart alleges that he licensed the use of that photo to the Daily Mail which, along with an article, published it to its website dailymail.uk.co on June 29, 2018. Stewart claims that he also registered his copyright with the United States Copyright Office.

Lopez allegedly copied the picture from the Daily Mail and posted it on her Instagram feed. Stewart’s lawsuit states that Lopez did not have permission to use the image and violated copyright law when she published it to Instagram.

Copyright Laws Protect Photographers from Unauthorized Use of Photos

Federal copyright laws are clear. The moment you take a photograph, a copyright exists. Filing a copyright registration is not necessary for a copyright to be enforceable. It merely allows you to pursue additional damages if someone violates your copyright.

A copyright means that you retain control over the use and publication of your photo. No one may use it without your permission or a license agreement. Photographers often issue licenses to publishers. It is how they get paid for their work. The terms of consent can vary. Parties can agree to limited use or unlimited use of a photograph. Conditions can include a fixed fee, no fee, or something in between. A photographer can also give up all rights to a picture. Copyright laws exist to ensure photographers retain control over how their images are used and that they are compensated for their work.

Photographers Can Collect Monetary Damages For Copyright Infringement

Stewart’s lawsuit, if successful, may secure him up to $150,000 in compensation. Lopez is just one of many celebrities facing allegations of Copyright infringement. Gigi Hadid, Bruno Mars, and Rod Stewart are just a few famous faces who have been accused of using pictures of themselves without permission from the photographer.

Contact Us

If you are a photographer of celebrities and your images are being used without your permission, consider filing a copyright infringement lawsuit to collect compensation. You should be paid for your work. Call Sanders Law Group today at 516-233-1660 to enforce your intellectual property rights.

Sources:

• https://www.diyphotography.net/jennifer-lopez-sued-for-150000-after-posting-a-photo-of-herself-to-instagram/
• https://theblast.com/jennifer-lopez-photographer-lawsuit/

If you earn your living as a photographer, it is essential that you be familiar with the laws that govern the rights to your work. Federal copyright law and intellectual property law (IP law) have a profound effect on individuals who create images and content for a living.

Your copyright exists the moment you take a picture. You may file a federal copyright registration, which is helpful should you wind up in litigation. However, your property rights in the photograph exist regardless. The rights to use that image belong to you. Others may not publish your work without your permission.

Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses a photograph created by someone else, without the proper permission or license. It also happens when someone violates the terms of a license agreement.

What Should You Do If Someone Is Using Your Pictures Without A License?

If you are a photographer, and copyright exists the moment you take a picture, what do you do when you suspect someone is violating your copyright by using your photos without or in violation of a license? In an article on DIYPhotography.net (DIYP), JP Danko interviews a member of Pixsy and offers suggestions to photographers about what to consider when they discover unauthorized use of their pictures.

These suggestions include:

1. Acting quickly and calmly
2. Gathering evidence
   1. Take screenshots of any unauthorized use of your image
   2. Be sure to include the URL information
   3. Save and print the page as a PDF
   4. Make sure you save it in a way that records the date and time
   5. Retain all physical evidence such as magazines, newspapers that contain your image
3. Considering your goal
   1. Do you want the picture taken down or out of circulation?
   2. Do you want compensation for the unauthorized use of your photograph?
   3. Do you want credit for the image?
   4. What do you think is the monetary value of the image?
   5. Are you willing to allow the publisher to continue to use your photograph for the right price?
4. Speaking to the publisher about the matter and negotiating a resolution on your own.
5. Contacting the host of a website and asking to take down the image.
6. Contacting a copyright lawyer who can help you secure a fair outcome that accurately reflects the value of your photographs and your hard work.

Why Hiring a Copyright Lawyer Can Help Photographers?

In DIYP’s Q & A, Pixsy strongly suggests that photographers tend to seriously undervalue their work. Allowing publishers to utilize photos and images for free perpetuates the myth that the work of photographers is easy and their work product is not important. These things are simply untrue. As Pixsy states, “You created a work that is unique using a skill set that you’ve acquired and developed throughout your life. Your work has an inherent value and needs to be treated as such.”

Having a copyright attorney advocating on your behalf takes the photographer and his or her emotions out of the equation. Your IP lawyer can assess your situation and consider factors such as:

• How did the unauthorized publisher use your image?
• How many people did it reach?
• How long did the publisher use your photograph without permission?
• Was the picture you took used for the publisher’s commercial gain

Being objective, your copyright attorney can evaluate your claim and work toward securing the monetary compensation you genuinely deserve under the law. If you are considering litigating your copyright infringement case or negotiating a fair licensing arrangement, consider consulting experienced copyright lawyers who represent photographers.

Contact Our Copyright Infringement Lawyers at Sanders Law Group

If you are a photographer and have discovered that someone is wrongfully using images you created, contact our copyright lawyers for a free consultation. Please call us at (800) 979-3707 and find out if we can help you protect your intellectual property rights and enforce your copyright.

• https://www.diyphotography.net/copyright-20-things-photographers-need-to-know-about-intellectual-property-law/

A PDN pulse report claims that photographers have organized a protest against the revised contract that the New York Times (NYT) is demanding they sign. As of June 13, 2018, 137 photographers signed a petition and presented it to the Times urging them to reconsider the terms of the contract. The NYT as of the end of June had not responded.

At this time, it remains unclear how the issues between contributors and the newspaper will be resolved. The situation, however, is a good reminder that photographers are engaged in a constant battle to protect their rights to their images.

Federal Copyright Laws Protect Photographers And Their Hard Work

Federal copyright law exists to allow photographers to maintain control over their work. When you are hired to take pictures on assignment, as a freelancer, for a publisher, you may have an agreement dictating the compensation, licensing, copyright, and use of your photographs. The terms of the agreement are up to you and the publisher.

Proposed NYT Contract Demands Photographers Give Up Copyright

According to David Walker, the writer of the report, the contract specifies that the NYT “will own all right, title and interest, including copyright, in the work for all purposes throughout the world.” Work, according to the contract, is all videotapes, still photographs, and logs that result from the assignment.

Danielle Rhoades Ha is the spokesperson for the Times, and she claims that in the new contract for photographers, the only change applies to photographs taken by drones. However, the terms of the deal, according to Walker, contradict this.

One copyright attorney explained in a letter to the protesters that because the new contract is a “work-for-hire agreement, it provides The New York Times with exclusive ownership of copyright to all assignment work. Previous agreements provided for copyright co-ownership of assignment work between the Times and its contributors. That gave photographers the right to re-license their work to other clients, and the right to defend their copyrights against infringement–rights they wouldn’t have under the new agreement, if they sign it.”

The attorney also points to another clause in the contract which would, if signed, allow the Times to unilaterally and without any reason, declare the photographs of a freelancer or employee on assignment, to be unacceptable. The Times would then have no obligation to pay the freelancer.

New York Times Puts Photographers’ Rights In Jeopardy

The contributors to the Times are being asked to forfeit their rights to the photographs they take. While any individual is free to enter into the contract, the organizers are trying hard to find strength in numbers with the hopes that the Times will see the error of its ways.

Federal copyright laws exist to give photographers control over the use of their work. When a publisher as large and powerful as the NYT seeks to erode the rights of individual freelance photographers, it puts these hardworking professionals in a difficult position: give up the rights to my pictures or be unable to work? It is a difficult choice to make.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers For Help Protecting Your Rights

Sanders Law Group, represents photographers worldwide in all stages of copyright cases:

• Negotiating license agreements
• Filing copyright registration
• Filing copyright infringement lawsuits
• Enforcing license agreements

Call our copyright attorneys today at (800) 979-3707 for a free evaluation of your copyright violation case.

Source:

• https://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2018/06/photographers-organize-against-new-york-times-rights-grab.html