Collecting Damages Copyright Infringement

Photographers Can Collect Damages for Copyright Infringement

Copyright infringement is illegal. If you are a photographer, you work hard to earn a living. You get to decide who uses your pictures and how. You also get to choose how much money, if any, you will charge for them.

Copyright infringement occurs with alarming frequency. You must take steps to collect compensation when someone violates your rights.

What is Copyright Infringement?

When you take a photograph, copyright automatically exists and grants you Several exclusive rights. Copyright infringement occurs when someone violates one of your exclusive rights under US Copyright Law. The rights include:

  • To make copies of the picture
  • To create derivative work based on the picture
  • To distribute copies of the picture
  • To publicly display the picture

When someone violates one of these rights, the actions might constitute copyright infringement.

To have a copyright infringement claim:

  • You must have a valid copyright
  • The alleged infringer must have access to the picture
  • The action of the suspected offender must not fall into an exception

In a Successful Infringement Case, You Can Collect Monetary Damages

When you prove infringement, you can collect damages. Depending on the circumstances, the following damages may be available:

Actual Damages
Actual damages are the losses that you, the copyright owner, directly suffered because of the infringement. Actual damages can be difficult to calculate because they are often speculative. These damages can include money for reduced sales of the copyrighted work or the loss of profits you would have earned from licensing.

Profits
The court will award you the profits earned by the infringer to the extent that they are higher than the value of your actual damages. The profits go to the copyright holder, so the violator does not benefit from his or her wrongdoing.

Statutory Damages
To collect statutory damages, you must show the court that you registered your pictures with the US Copyright Office. The registration must be before the infringement or within three months of publishing the picture.

What is the Value of Your Infringement Claim?

Every copyright infringement case is unique, and the range of monetary damage varies. When statutory damages are involved, the judge will determine the amount you will receive after analyzing various factors such as:

  • The severity of the infringement
  • The infringers ability to pay
  • The intent of the infringer

If the judge determines the infringement occurred innocently or was a mistake of some kind, you may only collect a few hundred dollars per incident of infringement. If you can prove the infringement on your copyright was intentional or malicious, the court may award you up to $150,000 per incident of infringement.

Examples of Copyright Infringement

Consider the following scenario: You have five photographs that are the subject of your copyright claim. You prove to the court that you hold a valid copyright, you registered it, and the defendant copied each photograph and sold them.

If the court decides the defendant, a small-time digital media specialist, had no way of knowing the photograph was copyrighted, the court may find she might have to pay less than the maximum based on the infringement.

If the court determines, the infringer worked for a large corporation that intended to infringe, the party knew the material was copyrighted, and the corporation sold thousands of copies; the defendant may have to pay up to $150,000 for each. In that case, the court could award up to $750,000.

Other Legal Remedies for Copyright Infringement

In addition to monetary damages, you might also ask the court for injunctive relief. An injunction stops the infringement from continuing. The court may impound or seize illegal reproductions or derivative work. The court can also give the infringer jail time.

Contact the Copyright Lawyers at Sanders Law Group

Have questions about collecting monetary damages for copyright infringement? You can reach our experienced copyright lawyers at 516-233-1660.

Sources:

Registering Your Copyright

Registering Your Copyright for Your Photographs: Common Questions

Where Do I Register?

To register for your federal copyright, you must submit information to the US Copyright Office. You can register your photographs by accessing online registration which is located on Office’s website. You may also register by printing and following the instructions on the form, which is also located on the website. The website for the US Copyright office is www.copyright.gov.

Why Do I Have to Register My Photographs?

Your copyright does exist from the moment you take a picture. It is automatic. Why register it with the US Copyright Office? Registering helps if you want to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court. If you register prior to the alleged infringement or within three months after your work is published, you might be able to collect statutory damages. Statutory damages can be significant, up to $150,000 for each photograph. Registering your copyright also means you might collect attorney’s fees. Without a valid registration, you will only be entitled to collect actual damages and profits, which can be very difficult to prove.

What Does “Published” Mean?

According to US Copyright Law, an image is published if copies of the work are distributed to the public by sale, rent, lease, or loan, or another transfer of ownership. Distributing copies to a group of people with the intent to further distribute or display your photograph does mean it is published.

Do I Have to Register Every One of the Photographs I Take Individually?

No, you can register several of your images at once. You can make one registration for a group of published images when:

  • The same photographer took all of the images
  • The images were all first published in the same calendar year

If your photographs are unpublished, you may register them in groups or collections. According to the Professional Photographers of America,

“A group of unpublished images can be registered as a collection if the elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form, the combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole, the copyright claimant for each element in the collection is the same, and all elements of the collection were created by the same author or at least one author has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.”

When Should I Register My Photographs?

It is wise to register your photographs before they are published or publicly displayed.

How Much Does It Cost to Register My Photographs?

As of this posting, it costs between $35 and $55 per application to register your photographs with the US Copyright Office.

What Is the “Poor Man’s Copyright?”

Poor man’s copyright is a term that refers to the practice of mailing yourself a copy of your work. This is not a recommended substitute for a valid registration.

Contact the Sanders Law Group for Assistance with Copyright Matters

Our experienced copyright lawyers can help you secure and enforce your legal rights. We represent photographers around the globe and work hard to ensure that you receive proper compensation for your hard work. Call us at 516-233-1660 for a free case evaluation.

Sources:

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Photographer, Friend Suing Prince’s Estate for Copyright Infringement

Fstoppers.com reported that Madison Dube is suing the estate of the late singer Prince and “associated companies” for copyright infringement. According to the article’s author Jack Alexander, Dube was a friend and protégé of Prince, who worked for the musician between 2013 and his death in 2016. Dube worked “to provide freelance work, including photography, graphic design, film/videography, voice, and other creative work.”

In her lawsuit, Dube claims the estate of the late singer is using some of that work for commercial value without permission.

US Copyright Law Gives Photographers Exclusive Rights

Under US copyright law, the person who takes a photograph is the exclusive owner of the rights to that photograph. This ownership right exists automatically the moment a photographer snaps a picture. Copyright protection extends to other forms of creative work as well.

Copyright gives a photographer the exclusive right to decide who, if anyone, may reproduce or “use” their work, and under what terms. License agreements provide specific terms of use and compensation. An artist can give away the rights for free or ask for payment. Again, copyright puts the control in the hand of the creator of the work.

Dube’s lawsuit alleges that Prince’s estate is using her materials without the proper licenses and without consulting her. She claims the estate is using the images in ways that are entirely beyond the intention of their collaborations, such as advertising and merchandising. The estate seems to be doing this with full knowledge that the work belongs to Dube, even giving her credit.

Dube Claims She Never Assigned Any Rights to Her Photographs of Prince

Setting this lawsuit apart from some other copyright infringement cases is that Dube’s claim states explicitly that she never signed away any of her rights to the work she did for Prince. The reason? Prince was a firm believer that artists should retain the right to their artistry.

What does Dube want? She wants the estate of Prince to stop using her images. She also wants damages for past use. The complaint states: “Ms. Dube now brings this action to assert her rights guaranteed under the Copyright Act, and to preserve the integrity of her work, currently being commercialized by defendants and used for mass-marketing, mass-produced sales and advertising, without her consent and contrary to the intent behind the creation of those works.”

The copyright case, 0:19-cv-02968-JRT-HB, was filed on November 22, 2019, in the US District Court of Minnesota and remains active.

Call Sanders Law Group To Protect Your Copyright

Sanders Law Group is dedicated to fighting for the rights of photographers around the globe. Call us today (800) 979-3707 for a free consultation of your copyright claim.

Sources:

Photo of John and Yoko Sparks Copyright Lawsuit

Photographer Sues Universal Music for Using his Photo of John Lennon

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

Iconic Photo of John Lennon is Subject of Copyright Lawsuit

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

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

The Complaint Contains Allegations of Intentional Copyright Infringement

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

The complaint also alleges that,

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

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

Federal Copyright Law Protects Photographers

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

Contact our Copyright Lawyers for Help

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

Sources:

Famous Photographer Sues for Copyright Infringement

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuit Lists Several Alleged Copyright Violations Devalued Her Work

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Our Copyright Infringement Lawyers for Help

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

Sources:

Paparazzo Sues For Copyright Infringement Media

Paparazzo Sues Ariana Grande for Copyright Infringement

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

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

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

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

The complaint states,

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

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

Photographers Fight for Their Intellectual Property Rights

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

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

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

Sources:

Gig Hadid Seeks Dismissal of Copyright Case

Company Suing Gigi Hadid Faces Possible Dismissal of Case

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

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

Attorney Alleges That Complaint Fails to Show Copyright Ownership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

Controversial New Copyright Laws in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition to the EU Copyright Directives Fear Censorship

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

EU Approval is Pending

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

Contact Us

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

Sources:

Artist Sues Arianna Grande

Visual Artist Sues Arianna Grande for Copyright Infringement

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

What Does the Law Say About Copyright?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Arianna Grande Violate Copyright Law?

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

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

Contact Our Copyright Lawyer

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

Sources:

Photographer Sues Gigi Hadid

Gigi Hadid Sued For Copyright Infringement Again

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

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

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

Lawsuit Alleges Hadid Willfully and Intentionally Violated Copyright Laws

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

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

What Does Copyright Law Say?

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

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

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

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

Sources: