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:

Copyright Infringement Suit Against Model

Photographer Sues Emily Ratajkowski for Copyright Infringement

Model and Actress Emily Ratajkowski is one more name on a growing list of celebrities facing off with photographers in legal battles. Ratajkowski, like others, is accused of violating the rights of a photographer by posting a picture without permission. Photographers across the globe have filed similar cases against musicians, designers, and models.

Who are these famous defendants in copyright cases? Justin, Bieber, Bella Hadid, Arianna Grande, and Jennifer Lopez, to name a few.

Robert O’Neil Sues Ratajkowski Over Instagram Post

The Fashion Law reported on October 23 that photographer Robert O’Neil filed his copyright infringement lawsuit against Ratajkowski in New York Federal Court. The complaint against Ratajkowski and her corporate entity Emrata Holdings, LLC, contains claims that Ratajkowski posted a photograph he took to her Instagram story and had no right to do so. The picture shows Ratajkowski holding a floral bouquet in front of her face as she walks down a city street. She posted it for her 24 million followers along with the caption “mood forever.”

According to The Fashion Law, O’Neil’s court documents allege 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.”

What are the Rights of a Copyright Holder?

The holder of a copyright has the exclusive rights to display his work publicly or to allow others to do the same. Photographers may issue licenses, collect fees, and set the terms under which their pictures can be used. In this case, O’Neil allegedly issued a license to and received payment from the UK Daily Mail. His complaint alleges that no such agreement existed between him and Ratajkowski. His complaint states that before posting the picture to Instagram, she “did not license the photo.” Nor did she have “permission or consent to publish the photo.”

Does it Matter that You Can’t See a Face in the Photo?

No, it does not. The photo itself is not what matters. As the author of the October 23, 2019, post states, “Regardless of who the subject of the photo is and whether or not they consented to having their photo taken, once an at least minimally original/creative photo is taken.”

The copyright holder, typically the photographer, has the exclusive copyright to that photo for his or her entire life plus 70 years after death. Unless the photographer assigns or otherwise grants rights to its use, he or she retains exclusive control.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today

If you are a photographer and a celebrity has posted a picture you took, you might be entitled to collect statutory damages for copyright infringement. Call the copyright attorneys at Sanders Law Group at (800) 979-3707 to discuss your infringement claim. Our copyright lawyers understand how to help photographers enforce their legal rights and collect compensation when someone violates them.

Sources:

New York Photographer Sues over Benedict Cumberbatch Photo

North Carolina Sees an Increase in Copyright Lawsuits with the Latest Filing by NY Photographer

A New York photographer is suing a Wake Forest-based company for copyright infringement. Photographer Steve Sands is represented by Sanders Law Group, which filed the federal lawsuit on August 8, 2019, in the Eastern District of North Carolina. According to the Triangle Business Journal (the Journal), the case is against Epicstream, a company that describes itself as “an independent news and entertainment website celebrating the fantasy and science fiction genres.”

In the lawsuit, the Triangle Business Journal reports, Sands claims that Epicstream used a photograph he took of Benedict Cumberbatch on the set of the film “Dr. Strange,” and did so with no license or permission. Sands states that he registered his copyright to the photo in question with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Epicstream allegedly featured the copyrighted photograph with an article it posted about Cumberbatch. The complaint itself states, “Epicstream did not license the Photograph from the Plaintiff… nor did Epicstream have Plaintiff’s permission or consent to publish the Photograph on the Website.”

One of Several North Carolina Cases

According to the Journal, the lawsuit filed by Sands and his attorney is just one of several recent copyright matters that have been in the local North Carolina news. Artists across the state are seeking to enforce ownership rights to their work. A few cases are pending in North Carolina that involve photographers claiming businesses are using copyrighted images with no compensation, permission, or licensing arrangements.

How Do Businesses Violate Copyright Law in North Carolina and Across the Globe?

Copyright violations occur daily in the United States and around the world. Artists, authors, photographers, and graphic designers are subject to purposeful and accidental acts that compromise their ownership rights in the work they create.

Consider some of the following ways businesses violate the copyrights of photographers and other creative individuals:

  • An advertising company uses a copyrighted image on a billboard to promote the products of a large corporation. The company does not ask you for permission or compensate you in any way.
  • A music festival creates flyers and posters to promote its event using an image you took, with no permission, agreement, or payment.
  • A marketing company prints a photo taken by you on dozens of items and sells them for a nice profit. The company knows you own the rights to the picture but does not pay for a license to use it or provide you with any compensation.
  • A celebrity uses a picture you took of her and uses it on Instagram to promote her global brand
  • A movie company showcases a photograph you took in many scenes in its film without permission or payment from you.
  • A business uses your pictures beyond the scope of a license agreement
  • A company does not pay you according to the terms of a license agreement

Contact Us

At the Sanders Law Group, we see every way in which photographers suffer when others violate their rights. If you are a photographer, you deserve compensation for your hard work. You also deserve compensation when someone infringes upon your copyright willfully or unintentionally.

Call the Sanders Law Group if you need help enforcing your copyright. We can help ensure that you and your work receive the maximum protection the law allows and that you collect damages to which you are entitled. Call our global copyright lawyer today for a free case evaluation at (800) 979-3707.

Sources:

Supreme Court Copyright Infringement Case

Supreme Court Takes on Copyright Infringement

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear the case of Frederick (Rick) Allen, well known filmmaker and photographer. According to Eriq Gardner in his article for the Hollywood Reporter, SCOTUS will determine if the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects states from copyright infringement lawsuits and prevents congress from drafting laws to the contrary. The case, titled Allen v. Cooper, is on the court’s calendar for November 5, 2019.

Allen Filmed and Photographed Salvaging of Pirate Ship: Queen Ann’s Revenge

Allen’s company, Nautilus Productions, is pursuing the state of North Carolina (NC) and its Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) for posting online videos Allen took of Queen Anne’s Revenge (QAR). QAR is Blackbeard’s pirate ship, which ran aground on the coast of North Carolina in 1718. A private research firm discovered the wreck in 1996. In 1998, Allen shot video and took photographs of the process of salvaging the wreckage. He registered his work with the United States Copyright office.

North Carolina Allegedly Used Photographers Copyrighted Work Without Permission

In 2013 when the DNCR first posted some of Allen’s video of the shipwreck on its website, the parties came to a mutual settlement. NC paid damages to Allen for the copyright infringement, and took the video off the site. Shortly thereafter, the DNCR posted several “short videos and one photograph” from the recovery expedition. Allen subsequently filed a lawsuit against NC and DNCR for copyright infringement.

North Carolina Passed Blackbeard’s Law

After Allen filed his lawsuit, NC passed Statute 121-25(b) which Allen calls “Blackbeard’s Law.” This law “treats all photographs, video recordings and other documentary materials of a derelict vessel or shipwreck or its contents as “public record.” It would follow, therefore, that NC’s use of Allen’s photographs and videos of QAR would not require permission from or compensation to the copyright holder. Allen’s videos and pictures of the expedition would be public record, usable by anyone.

The Photographer and State Have Opposing Views on Sovereign Immunity

Allen argued that the statute violated the due process clause of the constitution. The state held the position that the 11th amendment gave NC immunity from being the defendant in any federal lawsuit, despite the existence of the federal Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA). The CRCA grants citizens the right to file copyright suits against the government. The lower court agreed with Allen. On appeal, however, the court ruled in favor of NC.

Supreme Court Grants Cert to Photographer in Copyright Infringement Case

Allen petitioned SCOTUS for certiorari convincing them to address the confusion surrounding state sovereignty under the 11th Amendment and congress’s duty to protect the intellectual property rights of its citizens. Allen’s camp stated “The Constitution of the United States of America expressly empowers Congress to grant copyright holders ‘the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.’ We look forward to making our case to the Supreme Court as to why it was within Congress’s constitutional authority to hold states liable for their acts of copyright infringement.”

SCOTUS Will Determine Validity of the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act

The US congress passed the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA). The US Congress passed this law in the early 1990s. The CRCA effectively eliminated state sovereign immunity in cases involving intellectual property. The CRCA made it possible for private citizens to sue a state for violations of copyrights and other IP law. However, several cases over the years that arose under the CRCA, including Allen’s left its constitutionality up in the air.

Copyright Supporters Rally Behind Allen

More than a dozen organizations or individuals have filed briefs in support of Allen’s case urging SCOTUS to reinvigorate the rights bestowed by the CRCA. In one amicus brief filed by the music lobbying group The Recording Industry Association of America stated that under the ruling of the fourth circuit, “”States are once again free to engage in copyright infringement — no matter how widespread or blatant — without fear of having to pay any money as a result,” stated the amicus brief. “Unsurprisingly, then, despite Congress’s efforts, copyright infringement by States is once again a very serious problem.”

Contact Us to Discuss Your Copyright Claim

Call the Sanders Law Group if you are a photographer who needs help enforcing your copyright or other intellectual property rights. You can reach our lawyer who handles copyright matters around the globe at (800) 979-3707. Call today for a free consultation.

Sources:

Copyright Feud Over Infringement

Photographer Accuses Digital Artist of Stealing

There’s no formal lawsuit yet, but a very angry photographer is contemplating filing one. Photographer Jason Weingart is calling digital artist Brent Shavnore a “thief” and a “liar,” alleging he is stealing his photographs and using them in his own work.

Peta Pixel recently reported on this feud that has yet to turn into a legal battle. Shavnore insists that the accusations are the result of a misunderstanding and that Weingart is acting “childish.”

Who are the Parties Feuding?

Weingart is an extreme weather photographer. According to his website, he “travels over 50,000 miles each year in search of new and compelling images.”

Shavnore describes himself on his website as a “Marine Corp veteran, Audio Engineer/Photographer/Videographer/Social Media Marketing Consultant.” His work is popular on Instagram. Shavnore uses images of extreme weather and uses photoshop to create fantastical scenes. Weingart claims that Shavnore’s work contains his copyrighted images and that he is using them with no license or permission.

Weingart Asked Shavnore to Take Down the Images

When Weingart asked Shavnore to remove the images, Shavnore responded, “I buy all of my images from Shutterstock and Adobe Stock and have licenses for everything I blend together – if you did not authorize your work on Shutterstock or Adobe Stock, please let me know which ones are yours so I can notify them and remove them from my page.”

Shavnore Claims Pictures Were Licensed, Then Reneges

Weingart then allegedly scoured Adobe Stock and Shutterstock and confirmed that his work was not on either website. Since then Shavnore has explained that he got photos in question from a free site, Pixabay, which existed before Adobe Stock and Shutterstock. He claims that “The problem with the free sites is people upload work that is not theirs and pass it off as being royalty-free and you run into problems like this.” Shavnore claims this was a purely unintentional, honest mistake, and that he has removed the pictures that incorporate Weingart’s images.

Is Legal Action Coming?

Weingart told Petapixel that he is considering taking legal action against Shavnore. The issues that might arise in such a case might include:

  • Who is responsible if Shavnore downloaded the images from a free stock website?
  • Is it the website Pixabay?
  • Does the user have to research if there is a copyright for each photo?
  • If Shavnore’s violation was unintentional, will he still owe damages to Weingart?
  • Does the use of these images fall into the fair use exception?

As this feud demonstrates, the internet, photoshop, and social media have opened up an array of new copyright issues for the courts, photographers, and artists to consider.

Contact the Sanders Law Group If You Are a Photographer Whose Copyright Rights Have Been Violated

We help photographers protect their rights and collect compensation allowed by US Copyright laws. If you are a photographer in your legal rights of been violated, call our copyright attorneys today at 516-233-1660.

Sources:

Supermodel Copyright Infringement

A Photographer Is Suing Supermodel Gigi Hadid for Copyright Infringement.

Again.

This time, the photograph in question is her ex-boyfriend Zayn Malik.

E!News said that Hadid has not commented about this most recent complaint against her. But, she is no stranger to challenging the notion that the paparazzi have complete control over photographs of celebrities. This complaint marks the third time she is being sued for using a photograph on her social media that is alleged to violate the copyright of the photographer. The other two lawsuits involved posting pictures of herself on twitter or Instagram.

The Most Recent Infringement Lawsuit

In a September 13 report, E!News said that it obtained court documents showing that Robert O’Neil, professional photographer, filed a lawsuit against Hadid in the Southern District of New York. In the lawsuit, O’Neil claims that Hadid used his copyrighted photograph of Malik in her Instagram story.

The complaint states, “This action arises out of Defendant’s unauthorized reproduction and public display of a copyrighted photograph of English singer and songwriter Zayn Malik, owned and registered by O’Neil, a New York-based professional photographer.”

Suit Alleges Hadid Violated Photographer’s Copyright

When copyright attaches to a photograph, the photographer has control over how, where, and when it gets used or displayed. The photographer may grant a license for its use, with or without compensation. The purpose of copyright is to see that photographers get paid for their work and that others can’t profit from using it without permission or some agreement between the parties.

As O’Neil’s documents state, “Gigi Hadid is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Photograph.”

Photographer Asks Court for Maximum Statutory Damages

The fashionlaw.com reported that in this copyright infringement case, O’Neil asks the court award statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement. The damages requested are for violating his “exclusive right to display the image, and distribute copies of it to the public by sale or another form of transfer, such as licensing, among other things.”

If Someone Violates Your Copyright, Contact Our Attorneys Today

If you are a photographer and a celebrity posts without permission, pictures you took, call the Sanders Law Group today for a free case evaluation. Our experienced copyright lawyers represent photographers across the globe and can help you protect your legal rights. Call today at 516-233-1660.

Sources: