Mom’s Copyright Lawyer Tells Congressman To Stop Using Meme

Mother and Photographer Fumes Over Unlawful Use of Meme

You may have seen the original photograph: sitting on the beach is an adorable almost-toddler, fist raised, looking determined and intense, straight at the camera which his mom, Laney Griner, is holding. The image is known as “Success Kid” and became an instant viral sensation. It is a meme used around the internet for a variety of purposes, most of which express appreciation delight in earning a victory, recovering from a tough situation, or determination to succeed.

According to a recent New York Times (NYT) article, Griner took the picture described above, of her then 11-month-old son on the beach and registered her copyright in 2012. Since the photo became a meme, Griner has had little trouble with how the image has been used- until recently.

Congressman Accused of Using Meme in Violation of Photographer’s Copyright

Republican congressman, Steve King of Iowa, used this photograph in his campaign fundraising materials, and Griner won’t stand for it. King posted on his Facebook page, the photo of Success Kid, superimposed onto a picture of Congress along with the slogan “fund our memes.” The image was linked to a fundraising page hosted by King’s political action committee WinRed.

Through a cease-and-desist letter from her lawyer, Griner expressed dismay that King violated her copyright by using her son’s image without permission. Griner claims she would never permit King to use the photo, in light of his controversial political platforms.

The meme, according to the letter, became the viral sensation it did, primarily because of “its good-natured, friendly message.” King’s use of the meme “harmed and continues to harm that well-earned goodwill.”

How? Griner told the NYT that King’s record of bigotry and hatred toward immigrants and defense of white supremacists are not things with which she would ever want the image to be associated. She said she would never allow its use for something negative but that King is “the worst of the worst.”

Letter Claims Political PAC Violated Copyright Law

Griner accuses King of violating her copyright by using the meme without her permission to fundraise for the republican party. The letter from her lawyer also alleges that WInRed violated her copyright as well, which violates not only the law but the conditions of the political action committee.

Photographer With Copyright Tries to Maintain Control Over Meme

Griner is not against granting permission for her son’s image to be used in political or commercial campaigns. For example, in 2013, with her consent, President Obama used the image as part of an immigration reform promotion during his campaign. Griner also has agreements with several large companies that want to use the meme for various purposes.

Does a Photograph Lose Its Copyright Because it Becomes a Meme?

The simple answer is no. Nowadays, it becomes more and more difficult to control where your images end up, how they get used, and what they might be used to represent. However, it does not mean your rights should be ignored. Many people register copyrights specifically to ensure they retain some control over how a meme gets used- whether this is for commercial purposes or in association with something the copyright holder perceives as harmful. As one lawyer told the NYT, “a picture does not lose its copyright just because it becomes a meme.”

Contact Sanders Law Group, if You Are a Photographer

Call our copyright lawyers for all of your copyright needs. Our law practice focuses on helping photographers protect their copyrights around the globe.

Call us or a free evaluation of your copyright infringement case. Reach our copyright protection lawyers (800) 979-3707

Source:

Music Copyright Infringement Lawsuit for Willful Infringement

Using Music Often Requires Permission

Most people know that to use someone’s music in enumerated ways, whether performing it live for an audience or on television or in the background of a movie, you should always obtain permission. Sometimes, you can use it for free. Other times, the owner will have you purchase a license and pay for using the song.

Some licenses are more expensive than others, and some are prohibitively so. Regardless, using someone’s music without proper permission or license is copyright infringement.

Music Composer Has Sued Ford Company For Copyright Infringement

The Detroit News reported on April 17, 2020, that Freeplay Music LLC (FPM) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. The suit contains a multitude of allegations that the automaker, without permission, used more than 50 songs in the Plaintiff’s digital music catalog, violating copyright law over and over. Scott Schreer owns Freeplay and its online library of over 50 thousand works. Court papers describe him as “one of America’s most prolific and performed TV composers and producers.”

FPM used software to determine that Ford used its music in at least 74 videos and promotions.
According to its complaint, FPM informed Ford of the infringement in 2017. Ford did not then and has not since been able to provide evidence that it obtained a single proper license. The Detroit News stated that “FPM claims Ford continued to use songs without permission, until as recently as” April 13, 2020.

Composer Seeks Millions in Copyright Infringement Case

FPM’s lawyers speculate that the Schreer could collect millions. Arguing that it lost licensing fees and profits for this “willful copyright infringement,” FPM wants nothing less than the 150,000 per infringement the US copyright allows. FPM’s lawyers told the Detroit News that they estimate the copyright infringement to be worth over 8 million in damages for their client.

Copyright Law Gives Exclusive Rights to the Creator

Creators of original music automatically have rights under US Copyright Laws. Creative professionals have the right to control the use of their work and get paid for it. Others may use it only with permission, usually in the form of a license agreement.

The agreement sets the terms of payment and any limitations to which the copyright owner and the user can agree. Someone can assign or sell his or her copyright as well, with no limits. The point is: the person who created the art or music or writing gets to dictate how they want it used and at what price.

In this particular case, the complaint alleges that the FPM website makes it clear what a visitor to the site must do to secure a license and permission to use songs. The Plaintiff suggests that Ford, which is a billion-dollar company, should have known better than to infringe on its copyright once, let alone dozens of times.

Contact Our Copyright Infringement Lawyers at Sanders Law Group.

Photographers, artists, and musicians call the Sanders Law Group, to find attorneys devoted to protecting copyrights. You can reach our experienced copyright lawyers at (800) 979-3707. Call today for a free evaluation of your copyright claim.

Source:

Copyright Questions – What Cannot Be Copyrighted

What Can You Copyright?

At Sanders Law Group, our copyright lawyers help creative artists and professionals protect their rights. We represent photographers, musicians, authors, and others to ensure they receive proper compensation for their work. When others utilize their work without appropriate permissions, licenses, or payments, we hold them accountable and do everything we can to protect the legal rights of our clients.

Understanding your legal rights can help protect and enforce them. The US Copyright Office provides the public with a long list of frequently asked questions and their answers. While every copyright case is unique and might hinge on specific circumstances, the general knowledge the office provides can help you to understand the basics.

Many people wonder, “what can I copyright?” Here, we share some of the questions many people have about what they can and cannot copyright and the answers provided by the US Copyright Office on their website.

What Does Copyright Protect?

Copyright is a subset of intellectual property law. Copyright protects “original works of authorship.” Copyright does not protect ideas, facts, systems, or methods of operation. It may, however, protect how these things are expressed.

Can I Copyright my Website?

You may protect original authorship that appears on your website, such as artwork, writings, photos, and other forms of work covered by copyright.

Can I Copyright a Domain Name?

Copyright does not protect domain names. There is an organization that has ‘assumed the responsibility for domain name system management.” This nonprofit organization is called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) administers the assigning of domain names through various registers.

What If I Want to Protect One of My Recipes?

A simple list of ingredients is not protected under copyright.

But, “where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook,” copyright protection may apply.

Do not submit any recipe for registration if it has secret ingredients you wish to remain confidential. Applications to register copyrights and the copies for the deposit, are public records.

What If I Want to Copyright the Name of My Band?

Names, including names of bands, are not protected by US Copyright law. Some names might be protected under trademark law.

What if I want to Copyright a Name, Title, Slogan, or Logo?

Copyright does not protect titles, names, slogans, or short phrases. These items might, at times, receive protection under trademark law.

An artistic logo may be protected under trademark law. However, it “contains sufficient authorship,” it might fall under copyright protection.

Will Copyright Protect My Idea?

No. Your idea itself may not be protected by copyright. Copyright does not protect concepts, ideas, systems, or methods of doing something.

You may express and describe your thoughts and ideas in writings or drawings or other means of authorship and receive copyright protection for that work. But, the underlying ideas you are expressing in your work are not protected.

Do I Have to Publish My Work?

No. Publication is not required to receive copyright protection.

Is Architecture Protected Under Copyright?

Yes. December 1, 1990, architectural work was added to copyright protection. What is architectural work? The law describes it as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.”

Architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990, is eligible for copyright protection. Also, “any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection.”

Contact Us if You Are Concerned About Your Rights Under Copyright Law

Call the Sanders Law Group, if you need help protecting your legal rights under copyright law. We are dedicated to ensuring that photographers and other creative professionals are treated with the fairness and respect you deserve. We want you to get paid for your hard work and make sure you retain control over the circumstances under which it gets used.

Call our copyright lawyers representing clients around the globe, today at (800) 979-3707

Source:

Photographer Sues Facebook for Copyright Infringement

Photographer Sued Facebook For Violating Copyright

Lawstreet media has reported that photographer Christopher Boffoli filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Facebook. The complaint was filed in Washington Western District Court on February 14, 2020, and names Facebook as the only defendant.

According to his complaint, Boffoli is a professional photographer and the creator of “Big Appetites.” Big Appetites is “a series of photographs featuring tiny figures photographed against real food backdrops.” His complaint alleges the pictures are registered in the US Copyright Office and have been featured in various publications.

Boffoli claims that his work has been in domestic and international art galleries, his images have been licensed, and that companies hire and commission him for work. Boffoli says, his “business and income are based on the work he licenses and sells.”

Photographer’s Complaint Alleged Facebook Violated His Copyright By Allowing Infringement on its Platform

In the complaint, Boffoli alleged that Facebook users posted photos from Big Appetites with no licenses or permissions from Boffoli. The pictures were posted on “webpages housed on Facebook’s platform.” Facebook, Boffoli claimed, did not prevent its users from posting his copyrighted work.

Facebook also, he alleged, did not remove the material despite its ability and proper notice from him that his rights were being violated. It was not until Boffoli’s attorneys contacted Facebook that they removed the content. At that time, according to the legal documents, Facebook admitted that it failed to take down the infringed-upon work when asked because of technical issues.

Boffoli, in his complaint, states that without consent or permission, “photographs from Big Appetites were reproduced, derivative works were made from, copies were distributed of, and the photographs were displayed on Facebook’s platform.” As a result, his “exclusive rights in the photographs in Big Appetites were violated.”

The photographer is seeking injunctive relief against Facebook as well as monetary damages.

What Does Copyright Law Say?

Copyright law makes it clear that copyright exists to protect creative professionals like photographers and to allow artists to retain control over their work. At its core, it grants the creator the exclusive rights to:

  • Reproduce the work
  • Prepare derivative works based upon the work
  • Distribute copies by either sale or other transfer of ownership
  • Perform the work publicly
  • Display the work publicly
  • Perform the work publicly – using a digital transmission if the work is a sound recording
  • Copyright also gives the owner of the work the right to authorize others to exercise these exclusive rights, subject to certain statutory limitations.

Infringement comes in many forms, and the Internet can make it challenging to retain the control that the law allows. When someone takes your copyrighted material and displays it on their Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter account, it can be impossible to control where and how it might get used. It will be interesting to see if the platform used to display, sell, or distribute copyrighted work can be legally responsible for damages.

Contact our Copyright Lawyers to Protect Your Legal Rights

The Sanders Law Group, is dedicated to protecting the rights of photographers and other artists around the world. For a free evaluation of your copyright case, call our office at (800) 979-3707.

Sources:

Copyright Basics – Questions About Copyright

Copyright Basics From the US Copyright Office and Sanders Law Group

As lawyers who handle copyright cases for a variety of creative professionals, we at the Sanders Law Group, understand the importance of knowing your legal rights. We hear many questions from people about copyright law, and to some, there are simple answers. To others, the solutions require a significant review of specific facts of a case and laws that may apply.

Luckily for many, the US Copyright Office has a website that offers lists of commonly asked questions along with basic answers. Here, we share with you some of the “general” copyright questions and answers the office shares with the public.

What Is Copyright?

It is a form of protection “grounded in the US Constitution” and granted by law for “original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” Copyright’s umbrella covers published and unpublished works.

What Does Copyright Protect and What Does Copyright Not Protect?

Copyright protects original works of authorship. This protection includes literary, musical, dramatic, and artistic works. It does not protect facts, systems, ideas, concepts, strategies or methods of operation. It may, however, protect the way these things are expressed (such as diagrams, written documentation, speeches or video instruction).

Does Copyright Differ From a Patent or Trademark?

Yes. Copyright protects original works of authorship. It protects the expression of ideas. These can take the form of a drawing or painting, a diagram, written text, a video recording, an audio recording, a sculpture or other expression of an idea or thought. It does not protect the thought itself.

A patent protects inventions and discoveries. Copyright does not protect inventions or discoveries but may protect how they are expressed.

A trademark is also different. It protects “words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party,” distinguishing from the goods or services of others. You cannot copyright a single word, but you may be able to secure a trademark that protects that word for a particular usage in a particular classification of goods or services.

When Does a Copyright Protect My Work?

As soon as your work is created and fixed in a tangible form, it is under the protection of copyright. Your work must be perceptible directly or with the help of a device.

Must I Register With the US Copyright Office to Receive Protection?

No. Registration is not required. Copyright exists at the very moment you create the work. If you want to bring a lawsuit for copyright infringement of a US work, you will have to register with the US Copyright Office.

Are There Other Reasons to Register My Work?

Some choose to register their work with the US Copyright Office because they want a public record of the facts of their copyright and the certificate that comes with registration.

Also, registering your work means that, in the event of successful copyright infringement litigation, you may be able to collect attorney’s fees and statutory damages.

Another reason to register your work is this: If you register your work within five years of publishing it, it is considered “prima facie” evidence in court, helping to prove that you were the original author of the work.

What is a “Poor Man’s Copyright?”

A “poor man’s copyright” is the practice of sending a copy of your original work of authorship to yourself. Nothing in the US Copyright Law addresses this type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registering your copyright.

Is My Copyright Good Outside the United States?

The US has copyright relationships with many countries around the globe. These agreements mean that we honor the copyrights of each other’s citizens. However, we do not have copyright relationships with every country. To learn more about our copyright relationships with specific countries go to: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf

Contact Us if You Are Concerned About Your Rights Under Copyright Law

Call the Sanders Law Group, if you need help protecting your legal rights under copyright law. We are dedicated to ensuring that photographers and other creative professionals are treated with the fairness and respect you deserve.

Call our copyright lawyers representing clients around the globe, today at (800) 979-3707

Source:

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: