Music Sampling Copyright Claim Against G-Eazy

Sampling Leads To Lawsuit Against Hip Hop Artist G-Eazy

TMZ reported March 5, 2020, that Memphis DJ Squeeky and Gaylon Love are suing hip hop star G-Eazy for copyright infringement. The plaintiffs in the copyright lawsuit allege that G-Eazy’s hit song “No Limit” “straight up sampled their 1993 Southern hip-hop classic” “Looking 4 Da Chewin.” The court documents claim that Squeeky and Love are the exclusive owners of “Looking 4 Da Chewin” and that G-Eazy never got their permission to sample the song.

DJ’s Copyright Lawsuit Seeks Profits From G-Eazy’s Hit Song “No Limit”

No Limits is the lead single from the album The Beautiful & Damned, which G-Eazy released in 2017. The song sold over 5 million copies and features artists Cardi B. and A$AP Rocky. A remixed version of No Limit came out sometime later and featured Belly, Juicy J and French Montana. Squeeky and Love’s lawsuit does not name any additional artists as defendants in the case, only G-Eazy. The DJs are asking for profits from the song, which have been substantial due to its tremendous success.

What Does Copyright Law Say About Music Sampling?

Copyright law is clear: when you sample the music of another artist without getting their permission, you are breaching their copyright. Sampling without permission is copyright infringement – it does not matter how big or small of a portion you use. Artists who want to use a sample of someone else’s music must get permission to steer clear of violating copyright law.

Getting clearance for sampling is required whenever you plan to make copies of the music you are making and distribute it or sell it to the public. Permission is generally not needed if you are playing music for your friends or a small group, using the music at home, or what you are doing falls under “fair use doctrine.”

Call Our Lawyers For Help Filing a Copyright Complaint

Are you wondering, “How can I find a copyright lawyer near me?” Look no further than Sanders Law Group. Our copyright infringement lawyers represent photographers, musicians, and creative artists around the globe. For more information about how to file a copyright claim and protect yourself from breach of copyright, call Sanders Law Group, at (800) 979-3707 today.

Sources:

Copyright Lawsuit Settlement with Miley Cyrus

Songwriter Filed a $300 Million Copyright Claim Against Miley Cyrus

In March 2018, Michael May, who performs under the name Flourgon, filed a copyright infringement case against Miley Cyrus. The copyright lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court asked for $300 million in damages. Flourgon’s complaint accused Cyrus of stealing her hit song “We Can’t Stop” from a song he recorded 25 years ago. Cyrus’s tune was a mega-hit when it was released in 2013 and reached number 2 on Billboard’s Top 100 list.

Plaintiff Claimed That Half of Cyrus’s Hit Song Came From His Number One Single

May released a song in 1988 called “We Run Things,” which was the number one single in Jamaica, his home. According to a January 6, 2020 article in Variety, his copyright lawsuit against Cyrus and RCA Records alleged that they “misappropriated” elements of his song, including the phrase “We run things. Things no run we.” Cyrus, the documents allege, sings the words “We run things. Things don’t run we.”

May claimed that Cyrus’s song “We Can’t Stop” owes “the basis of its chart-topping popularity to and its highly-lucrative success to plaintiff May’s protected, unique, creative, and original content.”

Songwriter to Receive an Undisclosed Amount for Copyright Infringement

According to a Reuters report from January 3, 2020, the parties to the copyright case settled the matter for an undisclosed amount. The parties filed a joint stipulation in court, ending the lawsuit with prejudice. With prejudice means that there can be no additional legal action taken concerning these copyright infringement allegations.

May’s complaint asked for hundreds of millions in damages, but it is not clear just how much Cyrus and the other defendants agreed to pay him. If it is true that the songs are as similar as May alleged, that Cyrus misappropriated his lyrics, and his music made up a central part of “We Can’t Stop,” the amount of damages could be quite substantial.

Call Our Copyright Lawyers When Someone Breaches Your Copyright

At Sanders Law Group, our copyright lawyers are dedicated to protecting the rights of artists, photographers, and musicians around the globe. Our practice includes filing copyrights, filing copyright complaints, and taking other copyright actions when someone uses your work without permission or compensation.

Call our lawyers filing copyright claims today at (800) 979-3707 for a free evaluation of your copyright claims.

Sources:

Copyright Victory in Connection with Embedded Tweets and Photos

Copyright Enforcement Is Essential to Protecting Creative Artists’ Rights

Copyright laws bestow on photographers and other creative artists the exclusive rights to
reproduce, create derivative work, and perform their work publicly. The internet, social media, and technology, in general, has added a new level of complexity to the issue of copyright enforcement.

It has become more difficult for artists to control who uses and shares images. Keeping track of your copyrighted photographs, for example, can be difficult. But it can be done. It is essential that when people use and share your copyrighted work without permission, you do what you can to protect and enforce your rights.

Embedded Tweet With Copyrighted Picture Leads To Victory For Photographer

An example of one photographer who is working hard to receive the full protection of copyright law is Justin Goldman. DIY Photography reported in November that the photographer filed and won a lawsuit against “several publications that featured someone’s embedded tweet with his copyrighted photo.”

Posting Photograph on Social Media Lead to Copyright Infringement Case

The facts of Goldman’s case are similar to what occurs in many situations: Goldman posted a previously copyrighted photo to his Snapchat back in 2016. The picture was one of Tom Brady, Danny Ainge, and several players for the Boston Celtics. From his Snapchat account, the image was copied, spread, and eventually ended up on twitter.

Some Twitter users, Goldman alleged, uploaded the picture and sent it out on twitter, along with some comments. Several blogs and news outlets subsequently embedded the tweets in articles about Brady and the Celtics. The blogs and news outlets were the defendants in the copyright infringement case.

Federal Court Judge Decided Embedding Tweets in News Stories Could Violate Copyright Law

The Defendants argued that they could not be liable for copyright infringement because they, under the “server rule,” did not host the image and, therefore, could not be liable. Under that rule, if the image is stored on a third-party server and accessed by “in-line linking,” which works like embedding, then there’s no infringement. None of the defendants in Goldman’s case uploaded the image to their servers.

The Judge rejected their argument and decided that embedding tweets in news stories and articles still violated Goldman’s copyright in the photo.

According to Judge Katherine Forrest, “When a user visits a website with an embedded tweet, she noted, the user sees a mix of text and photos that’s seamlessly integrated, even if the underlying images are hosted elsewhere.” Additionally, she determined “that when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield from this result.”

Judge Forrest continued to state that her decision is entirely in line with the plain language of the Copyright Act, its legislative history, and previous Supreme Court rulings. She added that US copyright laws “provide no basis for a rule that allows the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have ‘displayed’ a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act.”

US Court of Appeals Refused to Review Copyright Issue

The US Court of Appeals denied the Defendants’ immediate motion to appeal Judge Forrest’s decision. With no further review of this case, the case was set to go to trial. Goldman voluntarily dismissed his case following a settlement with at least one defendant with consent from the last remaining defendants. Sources report that Goldman will continue to seek out Defendants who violated his copyright by embedding his protected picture on their websites.

Is Someone Using Your Pictures Without Permission? Call Our Copyright Infringement Lawyers For Help

At Sanders Law Group, our lawyers are filing copyright claims to help photographers retain and maintain control over their work. Don’t let others use your pictures without paying you or getting permission.

Call our copyright lawyers today at (800) 979-3707 for information about filing a breach of copyright claim.

Sources:

Photographer Sues Bieber

Photographer Files Lawsuit Against Justin Bieber for Copyright Infringement

It’s Justin Bieber’s turn to defend himself against a copyright infringement lawsuit. Photographer Robert Barbera filed a lawsuit against Bieber that, according to Eonline.com, accuses the pop star of the “unauthorized reproduction and public display” of a photograph copyrighted and owned by Barbera.

The photo in question is of Bieber and his friend Rich Wilkerson. The picture shows the pals in a car. Bieber posted the picture on his Instagram feed on March 13. Barbera is the photographer who snapped the photo. In documents obtained by E!News, Barbera claims that he
“is the author of the Photograph and has at all times been the sole owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the Photograph, including the copyright thereto.”

The court documents further state that at no time did Bieber have permission, consent, or license to use or publish the photograph.

Bieber is One Of Many Celebrities Accused of Infringement

Bieber is just the latest defendant in a slew of copyright infringement cases filed against celebrities. Several photographers are fed up with stars using pictures they work hard to capture. What other celebrities are being sued for copyright infringement? Jennifer Lopez, Gigi Hadid, and more. Photographers are trying hard to enforce copyright laws that protect them from the unauthorized use of their work.

What Are Some of the Legal Issues in Bieber’s Case?

It is likely that Bieber, as many celebrities do, will defend the posting of the photograph as “fair use.” Fair use is a doctrine that makes it “ok” to use a copyrighted picture for limited purposes. Whether or not a particular photograph and its use falls into this category depends on several factors the court takes into consideration. Typically, an image used for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research–as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.

The court will examine:

  • Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature
  • Nature of the copyrighted work
  • Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  • Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

As stated by the U.S. Copyright Office, “Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry.”

Social Media and Blurred Copyright Lines

When it comes to photographs of celebrities and social media, it can be difficult to determine whether an image is used for commercial purpose. Some argue that celebrities’ social media pages are all about commercialization and exposure of their brands. Some use their Instagram pages to earn money directly through endorsements, product placement, and more.

When a celebrity with millions of followers posts a photograph of him or herself, is it for commercial purposes? Does it devalue the image for the photographer who took the picture? These are some issues the court will have to decide.

Contact Us with Questions Regarding Photography and Copyright Violations

If you are a photographer with copyright infringement concerns, you have rights. Your copyrighted photographs should remain under your control, and you should receive compensation for their usage. Call the Sanders Law Group, at (800) 979-3707 for a free evaluation of your copyright infringement claim.

Sources:

New Copyright Issues with Paparazzi and Social Media

Social Media, Celebrities, and Paparazzi Bring New Attention to Copyright Issues

In an October 30, 2019 article for IP Watchdog.com, Meaghan Kent, Katherine Dearing, and Danae Tinelli highlight some legal issues gaining new attention from a spate of copyright infringement cases involving celebrities, social media, and paparazzi. Many issues remain unresolved because the lawsuits were settled out of court or dismissed for procedural reasons. However, taking a closer look at them may help photographers understand their rights and how to enforce them.

At the heart of recent cases filed by photographers against celebrities is a celebrity’s right of publicity using their image and a photographer’s right to copyright their work. Defendants in copyright infringement cases recently have included Gigi Hadid, Jennifer Lopez, Victoria Beckham, Justin Bieber, and Khloe Kardashian. Most of them involve the defendant posting a photo of themselves on Instagram. The pictures in question were taken by paparazzi who allege the postings violate copyright law. In these cases, the photographers claim:

  • they own the copyrights to these pictures
  • they have the exclusive rights to use and distribute them
  • they gave no permission for their use

Does a Celebrity Have an Implied License?

An implied license can exist. Courts have ruled that a license does not have to be in writing but can be verbal and implied from conduct. Courts differ as to what it takes to demonstrate an implied license exists. Still, they agree that it “requires that an alleged infringer demonstrates that even without an express verbal or written agreement, the parties’ conduct indicates an intent to grant a license.”

The court might consider:

  • Whether the potential licensee requested the creation of the work
  • Whether the photographer created the work and delivered it to the licensee
  • Whether the photographer intended the licensee to distribute the work

If you are a celebrity, is stopping for a photographer a “request” to have your picture taken?
Does a photographer give implied consent to use the photograph when he or she posts it on social media? Is this a form of “delivering” it to the licensee? IN a recent copyright infringement case involving Gigi Hadid, the court did not have a chance to rule on this issue.

It is important to note that cases involving the implied license defense are very fact-specific.

Does a Celebrity Co-Author a Photo by Posing?

It is widely accepted that “the positioning of a subject of a photograph contributes to copyright ownership in a photograph.” When there is a sufficient contribution, the work may be a “joint” work. The Copyright Act defines a joint work as one “prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary work.”

In the case of paparazzi photographing celebrities, does the subject independently striking a pose satisfy the standard of Co-authorship? Is co-ownership established by the simple act of stopping, smiling, or otherwise posing for the camera? If you are a photographer and you ask your subject’s opinion about the lighting, background, or pose, are you endangering your rights?

Can a Celebrity Copyright a Pose?

Theoretically, yes. But this is a strict standard to meet. It is not likely that a pose will be unique enough for a celebrity to claim that it establishes copyright ownership in a photograph.

The Copyright Office will not extend protection to “commonplace movement or gestures,” or “ordinary motor activities and athletic movements.”

A model who claims he or she posed in such a unique way that it establishes ownership over your photograph is unlikely to have a successful defense in court.

What Does This Mean For Photographers?

The rise of social media has taken copyright law to a new level. The legal issues above have yet to be examined closely in federal court. However, the rules about copyright remain the same. The laws have not changed. They are simply being applied to new situations. The goal of copyright law is also the same; to give creative professionals control over their work and the right to earn a living from their art.

Contact our copyright infringement lawyers at the Sanders Law Group, for a free consultation. Our lawyers are dedicated to protecting the rights of photographers around the world. Call us today at (800) 979-3707.

Sources:

Copyright Victory

Judge Awards $258,000 to Photographer in Copyright Case

Scott Gunnellis, a professional photographer, has won his lawsuit for copyright infringement. American Choppers star Paul Teutel Sr., has been ordered by a federal judge to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the photographer who sued Teutel and others for copyright infringement.

Photographer Alleged American Chopper Star Used Photograph on Merchandise and Advertising Without Permission

Gunnellis sued Paul, his son “Mikey,” Orange County Choppers, Discovery, Inc., and Pilgrim Media Group in June 2019. The case, filed in the Southern District of New York, contained several allegations of copyright infringement. Those allegations, as reported by Page Six.com included:

  • That the show used a photograph of Mikey on merchandise for sale such as hoodies and t-shirts. The photo, taken by Gunnellis, was also used on the show itself.
  • That a different photo that Gunnellis took of Mikey was used to promote Mikey’s art show. Gunnellis claimed that the Teutels removed his logo from the picture, indicating they knew they were violating his rights.

Photographer Wins Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against American Choppers

On February 20, 2020, DIY Phototraphy.net (DIY) reported that the lawsuit has concluded, and the judge issued a verdict.

The judge ordered Teutel to pay Gunnellis $258,000 for using his photos without permission.

US Copyright Laws Create Immediate, Enforceable Rights for Photographers

The US Copyright Law makes it clear that a copyright exists the moment a photographer creates a picture. Control over the picture rests with the copyright holder or owner. He or she can keep those rights or assign rights to others. It is the copyright holder’s decision who may reproduce and distribute the work, if anyone, and at what price, if any. Using a copyrighted picture without permission, especially for commercial gain, violates copyright law.

Here, the judge determined that Teutel used Gunnellis’s photos with no permission or compensation. Although it is not clear how the judge arrived at the damages amount, copyright infringement cases can include statutory damages or actual damages. They can consist of a calculation of any profits the infringer got for using the picture.

As the writer for DIY stated, “Obviously, the photo used on merch and in the reality TV show was used for commercial purposes. It’s not clear how much Paul and Michael Teutel earned off the merchandise.”

As Anete Lusina stated in her February 24, 2020, article for Fstoppers, people violating copyright vary, which makes it especially difficult for photographers. There is no profile of a copyright infringer. “From less informed individuals assuming that everything that can be found online is available to be downloaded, used, and reproduced, to people who are actually aware of restrictions and knowingly breaching them regardless. It is a tough battle for photographers to protect their copyright. But, if anything, this particular case demonstrates that those rights are worth fighting for.”

Sources:

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

California Artist Is Suing Pixar and Disney For Copyright Violations

Daniel Goldblatt, writing for thewrap.com, has reported that a San-Francisco artist has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Pixar and Disney. The lawsuit filed in January alleges that the companies violated her rights by copying her “signature unicorn-covered van — which she calls “Vanicorn” — for a character in the upcoming movie “Onward.”

The Origin of the “Vanicorn”

Artist Sweet Cecily Daniher, as it states in her complaint, “has a real thing for unicorns.” Unicorns have been a “central theme” throughout her life and artistic career. In addition to publishing a photography book about unicorns and having a unicorn sculpture on her house, she created the Vanicorn.

The complaint states that for six years, Daniher has owned a “tremendously cool, dark blue and/or purple 1972 Chevrolet G10 van, with red shag carpeting, red velour walls and seating, and a white shag carpet roof.” It also features a mural of a white unicorn on the side that appears to be glowing amidst a background of the night sky, lightning, and stars. The complaint categorizes Daniher’s Vanicorn as “a uniquely San Franciscan work of public, mobile, automotive art, and a redemptive and validating act of recovery from toxic masculinity and a former marriage.”

Pixar/Disney Rented the “Vanicorn” in 2018

Pixar/Disney contacted Daniher in September 2018 to ask about renting the Vanicorn for a single event. It was to be used at a one-day festival for Pixar employees and their families. The Vanicorn, according to the rental agreement, would be “used as a showpiece.”

Daniher received an undisclosed amount of money for the rental.

“Onward” Character Bears a Striking Resemblance to the “Vanicorn”

Daniher discovered in May 2019 that the soon to be released movie “Onward” would feature a character named Guinevere. The complaint refers to Guinevere as a “pilfered and unlawful duplication” of the Vanicorn.

Guinevere is a van described in the lawsuit as “a tremendously cool, dark blue and/or purple 1972 Chevrolet G10 van with a red interior, and a big mural of a unicorn on its side.”

Daniher posted a photo of the two vans side by side on her Instagram page expressing her unhappiness. She allegedly received a call from the producer of Onward apologizing for not telling her, “they planned to use Vanicorn as Guinevere.”

Photographer Is Seeking Damages and Injunctive Relief

It is no surprise that Daniher is seeking damages and injunctive relief from Pixar and Disney.

She is seeking statutory damages for infringement and injunctive relief to stop “the defendants from distributing, marketing or selling infringing advertisements, merchandise, and the film itself.” She is suing for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act, and violation of the California Artists Protection Act.

Given the level of marketing and hype that accompanies the release of a new Pixar/Disney movie, it will be interesting to see how this case resolves and how much Daniher obtains in damages.

Contact Our Lawyers For Copyright Help

Contact the Sanders Law Group, lawyers protecting the rights of artists and photographers around the globe. For help enforcing your copyright, call our lawyers at (800) 979-3707.

Sources:

Lawsuit Copyright Infringement

Agency Files Copyright Lawsuit Against Jennifer Lopez

Jennifer Lopez is being sued, again, for copyright infringement. This time, the photo in question is of herself with fiancé Alex Rodriguez. E!News reported on October 7, 2019, that Splash News and Picture Agency claims in a lawsuit that when Lopez posted the photograph to her Instagram feed in 2017, she violated the agency’s copyright.

US Copyright Laws Protect Photographers

US copyright laws protect the rights of photographers by instilling immediate property rights in the pictures they take. When a photographer works for an employer, the employer often holds the copyright. At times, a photographer will assign, sell, or license some or all of the rights to pictures.

The copyright owner has control over the use and distribution of the pictures. In other words, no one may use the images without permission in the form of a license, contract, or additional agreement. The Copyright Society of the USA (CSUSA) explains that without your consent, no one can:

  • Copy your pictures
  • Distribute copies of your photographs
  • Display your photos publicly
  • Create derivative work from your pictures

Splash News Agency Claims Copyright Over Image

Splash News Agency claims that it is the holder of the copyright of the photograph in question. According to E!News, the court documents state, “Plaintiff never licensed the Photograph to defendant. Nevertheless, Lopez used it without authorization or permission from plaintiff to do so. Specifically, Lopez or someone acting on her behalf copied the Photograph and distributed it on Instagram, via the @jlo account, on a story posted November 7, 2017.”

Is Posting on Instagram Without Permission Fair Use of a Photograph?

The picture at the heart of the dispute shows Lopez holding hands with Alex Rodriguez while walking about in New York City. Is this fair use of a photograph? Courts consider several factors when considering if something is fair use. Factors include: the nature of the use – whether it is for commercial purposes; and the effect of the use on the value of the photograph – is it taking money away from the copyright holder?

In this instance, Splash News Agency claims that “Because of the subject’s celebrity status, and the Photograph’s quality and visual appeal, plaintiff (and the photographer it represents) stood to gain revenue from licensing the Photograph.”

The complaint also states, “The Instagram post made the Photograph immediately available to Lopez’s tens of millions of followers and others, consumers of entertainment news–and especially news and images of Lopez herself, as evidenced by their status as followers of her–who would otherwise be interested in viewing licensed versions of the Photograph in the magazines and newspapers that are plaintiff’s customers.”

Photographers Are Holding Celebrities Accountable for Copyright Infringement

This is not the only time Lopez has been sued for copyright infringement for posting photos on Instagram. Nor is she the only celebrity to face complaints such as this one. Lopez is one of the dozens of models, actors, and musicians being taken to court by photographers trying to enforce their copyrights. This time, Splash News Agency is asking for $150,000 in monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Contact Us If You Are A Photographer Seeking To Enforce Your Copyright.

We represent photographers across the globe in copyright infringement cases and welcome the opportunity to discuss your claim. Call the Sanders Law Group today at (800) 979-3707.

Sources:

Photographer Sues Fox For Infringement

A Photographer is Suing Fox News Network for Copyright Infringement

Bloomberg News has reported that the Sanders Law Group is representing Jesse Korman, a photographer who is accusing Fox News Network, LLC of copyright infringement. The photographer alleges that Fox reproduced a picture Korman took of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and used it in one of their television broadcasts. Korman filed his lawsuit in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York on July 24, 2019.

In the complaint, Korman claims that Fox News displayed a photograph of Ocasio-Cortez during a February 2019 television broadcast. Korman further claims that as the photographer who took the picture, he owns all rights to the image. The lawsuit, according to Bloomberg, alleges that “Fox News violated copyright law via the “unauthorized reproduction and public display” of the photograph of Ocasio-Cortez.

US Copyright law states that the individual who takes the picture has control over how, where, and when it gets used. A photographer has these rights automatically; the moment he or she takes an image, copyright exists. The owner of the copyright may retain all of the rights, give them away with or without compensation or, more likely, issue a license that allows another party, the limited use of the work. “Fox News is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Photograph.”

Was Fox News’s Use of The Picture “Fair” Under Copyright Law?

There is a fair use exception to copyright law, which is a common defense in copyright infringement lawsuits. Courts take under consideration the following factors when deciding whether the use of a specific piece of work falls into the fair use category. They are:

  • How the use affects the potential market.
  • the character and purpose of the use
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion of the work that is used
  • the nature of the copyrighted work itself

If this lawsuit reaches a judge or jury, some of the questions that arise might include:

Was Fox’s use of the photograph for commercial purposes?
Was the photograph used in a new way?
Was it transformative?

At least one individual told Bloomberg News that this is a clear case of copyright infringement on the part of Fox News. A law professor at the University of Idaho told Bloomberg, “At first glance, it does not appear that Fox has a credible fair use claim.” The use is commercial and non-transformative. The photo itself is not news; it’s just being used to illustrate a story about AOC. News publishers traditionally license this kind of use.”

Fox News Declined to Comment

The position Fox News will take in its defense of this lawsuit is speculative at this time. Bloomberg News reported in its article that Fox News did not wish to comment on the matter.

Contact Us

The Leibowitz Law Firm, LLC, represents photographers across the globe and helps them ensure their rights receive the utmost protection. If you are a photographer or other creative professional who needs help with copyright filing, negotiating a license agreement or holding someone accountable for infringement, look no further than our office. Call our experienced copyright lawyers at (800) 979-3707.

Sources:

NYC Landmark Limits Ownership of Pictures

New York City Landmark Limits Photographers’ Rights

Hudson Yards, located on the West side of New York City, is the largest private real estate development in the United States. One of its most popular features is a 16-story open-air building called Vessel. Vessel is described as a permanent, interactive art installation. The main attraction of Vessel is that it allows the public to walk up and capture beautiful views of New York City for free.

Jack Alexander, in a March 2019 article for Fstoppers.com, a self-described “community-based photography news website,” noted that by visiting Vessel you must agree to the terms and conditions. At the time, those terms included giving up all rights to the pictures you take while in the structure. The terms and conditions required visitors to “agree to hand over the copyright of any photos taken while there, and in doing so, permit the company to use the images royalty-free worldwide.”

Under US copyright law, the rights to a photograph belong to the person who takes it. Copyright is automatic. The photographer may license, grant permission, give away, charge a fee, or make an agreement to allow the reproduction, display, or use of the picture. While it is not uncommon to relinquish some rights when visiting a landmark, the level to which Hudson Yards took this, was met with pushback.

The Public Blasted Hudson Yards for Requiring Visitors to Relinquish Ownership of Photos

After an outcry by the public, Hudson Yards agreed to refine its policy and change the language to clarify its original intent. In a Bloomberg News report, a spokesperson related to Hudson Yards said: “The intent of the policy is to allow Hudson Yards to amplify and reshare photos already shared on individual social channels through our website and social channels.”

Under New Terms and Conditions, Visitors Retain Copyrights of Photographs

According to the new terms and conditions posted on the Hudson Yards Vessel website, photographers and the public are no longer agreeing to give up their copyrights. Instead, under a section titled “MY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS,” picture-takers retain ownership of photographs, videos and recordings depicting or relating to Vessel “unless otherwise agreed to by me and the company.”

The terms also make visitors agree that:

“If I post any Vessel Content to any social media channel, I hereby grant to Company and its affiliates the right to re-post, share, publish, promote and distribute the Vessel Media via such social media channel and via websites associated with the Vessel or Hudson Yards (including my name, voice and likeness and any other aspects of my persona as depicted in the Vessel Media), in perpetuity. I understand that I will not be entitled to any compensation from.”

These new terms became effective on July 1, 2019.

By taking photos while visiting Vessel, you are still giving away some of your rights; you are giving the company permission to post, publish, share, promote and distribute your pictures and videos without compensation if you:

  • Take the photos from Vessel
  • Put them on social media

Does Taking Pictures OF Vessel Present Copyright Problems?

Taking pictures of Vessel from the street means you did not get a ticket to visit the structure. Without a ticket, you have not agreed to its terms and conditions. Does this mean you retain full control over your images? Perhaps not. If Vessel truly is an art installation, the creator of Vessel may have a copyright claim. This is something to consider when photographing various landmarks, pieces of art, and other objects.

Contact Us

If you are a photographer with a copyright issue, call Sanders Law Group today. We have experienced copyright attorneys representing photographers across the globe in all types of copyright matters.

Call us at (800) 979-3707 for a free evaluation of your copyright case.

Sources: