Dealing with Copyright Infringement for Photographers

How to Deal with Copyright Infringement as a Photographer – Tips and Strategies

Understanding Copyright Laws for Photographers

As a photographer, it is crucial to understand the copyright laws that apply to your work. In the United States, copyright protection is automatically granted to original works, including photographs, as soon as they are created. This means that you, as the creator, own the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display, and create derivative works from your photographs.

Registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is not required for protection, but it offers significant benefits. It establishes a public record of your copyright and enables you to pursue legal action against infringers more effectively. The Sander Law Group specializes in assisting photographers with registering their copyrights and understanding their rights under U.S. copyright laws.

Monitoring Your Work for Unauthorized Use

One of the first steps in protecting your photographs is actively monitoring for unauthorized use of your work. You can use various tools and methods to keep an eye on your images online. Reverse image search engines like Google Images or TinEye can help you find instances where your photos are used without your permission. Set up Google Alerts with your name or specific keywords related to your photography to receive notifications when your work is mentioned online.

Another option is to use digital watermarking or metadata embedded in your images, which can help track and identify your work. Keep in mind that watermarking can be removed by determined infringers, so it’s essential to have multiple monitoring strategies in place. Sander Law Group can advise you on best practices for monitoring your work and help you stay informed about potential infringements.

Reacting to Copyright Infringement

When you discover unauthorized use of your photographs, it’s essential to take action quickly and effectively. First, gather evidence of the infringement by taking screenshots and documenting relevant information such as the URL, the date you found the infringement, and the infringer’s contact information. This will be helpful if you decide to pursue legal action.

After collecting evidence, consider reaching out to the infringer with a cease and desist letter. This letter serves as a formal notice that they are violating your copyright and should remove the infringing content immediately. In some cases, the infringer may be unaware of the violation and will comply with your request. Sander Law Group can help you draft a compelling cease and desist letter that clearly states your rights and demands.

Working with Copyright Lawyers

If the infringer does not respond to your cease and desist letter or continues to use your work without permission, it may be time to consult with a copyright lawyer. The experienced copyright attorneys at Sander Law Group can help you evaluate your case, determine the best course of action, and represent you in any legal proceedings that may follow.

Working with a knowledgeable copyright lawyer can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case. They can assist with negotiations, settlements, and, if necessary, litigation to protect your rights and recover damages for the unauthorized use of your photographs. Don’t hesitate to seek legal advice when dealing with copyright infringement, as it can be a complex and challenging process to navigate on your own.

Preventive Measures to Protect Your Photography

In addition to monitoring your work and taking action when infringement occurs, there are several preventive measures you can take to protect your photography. Clearly displaying copyright notices on your website, social media profiles, and alongside your images can help deter potential infringers and educate them about your rights.

Consider using licensing agreements when granting permission for others to use your work. These agreements can specify the terms of use, duration, and any fees associated with the usage of your photographs. Sander Law Group can help you draft comprehensive licensing agreements that protect your interests and ensure your work is used responsibly.

Building a Solid Online Presence

A strong online presence can serve as a deterrent to copyright infringement. By showcasing your work on your website, social media platforms, and online portfolios, you establish yourself as a professional photographer and make it clear that you take your copyright seriously. This can discourage potential infringers from using your work without permission, as they may recognize the risks associated with violating your rights.

Be proactive in promoting your photography, sharing your expertise, and engaging with your audience. A well-respected and easily recognizable presence in the photography community can make it more difficult for infringers to claim ignorance of your copyright ownership. By building a solid online presence, you not only protect your work but also increase your visibility and credibility as a photographer.

Contact the Sander Law Group Today

Dealing with copyright infringement as a photographer can be a challenging process, but understanding your rights, monitoring your work, and taking action when necessary can help you protect your valuable creations. Sander Law Group specializes in enforcing copyright protection for photographers and can provide expert guidance and support in handling copyright infringement cases. With a proactive approach and the help of experienced copyright attorneys, you can safeguard your work and focus on your passion for photography.

Music Sampling Copyright Claim Against G-Eazy

Sampling Leads To Lawsuit Against Hip Hop Artist G-Eazy

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

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

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

What Does Copyright Law Say About Music Sampling?

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

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

Call Our Lawyers For Help Filing a Copyright Complaint

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

Sources:

Copyright Lawsuit Settlement with Miley Cyrus

Songwriter Filed a $300 Million Copyright Claim Against Miley Cyrus

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

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

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

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

Songwriter to Receive an Undisclosed Amount for Copyright Infringement

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

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

Call Our Copyright Lawyers When Someone Breaches Your Copyright

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

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

Sources:

Copyright Victory in Connection with Embedded Tweets and Photos

Copyright Enforcement Is Essential to Protecting Creative Artists’ Rights

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

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

Embedded Tweet With Copyrighted Picture Leads To Victory For Photographer

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

Posting Photograph on Social Media Lead to Copyright Infringement Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Court of Appeals Refused to Review Copyright Issue

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

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

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

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

Sources:

Photographer Sues Bieber

Photographer Files Lawsuit Against Justin Bieber for Copyright Infringement

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

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

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

Bieber is One Of Many Celebrities Accused of Infringement

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

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

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

The court will examine:

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

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

Social Media and Blurred Copyright Lines

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

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

Contact Us with Questions Regarding Photography and Copyright Violations

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

Sources:

New Copyright Issues with Paparazzi and Social Media

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

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

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

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

Does a Celebrity Have an Implied License?

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

The court might consider:

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

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

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

Does a Celebrity Co-Author a Photo by Posing?

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

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

Can a Celebrity Copyright a Pose?

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

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

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

What Does This Mean For Photographers?

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

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

Sources:

Copyright 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:

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: