MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Liebovitz sued by photographer  (Read 3238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 06, 2009, 13:59 »
0


lisafx

« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2009, 09:35 »
0
Wow.  When it rains it pours. 

She has always been my favorite portrait photographer.  Sorry to read lately about all her troubles.

No excuse for plaigerizing someone else's images though. 

« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2009, 10:06 »
0
Of course we don't know her side of the story. When the photographer took the images he was being paid by Liebovitz and acting under her brief __ it might be questionable who does own the copyright.

It seem to be almost unique to photographers that even when they're being paid by others and acting on their instructions they seem to still think that they should retain copyright of the images they take. I can't think of any field where this happens. For example when Warhol used other artists to produce art on an industrial scale (as other artists have done before and since) there was never any question that he owned the images and the copyright even if he'd never actually touched them.

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2009, 10:10 »
0
Of course we don't know her side of the story. When the photographer took the images he was being paid by Liebovitz and acting under her brief __ it might be questionable who does own the copyright.


Excellent point.  I hadn't thought of that, but you are absolutely right.   

For example, if I remember correctly, in the US the copyright is presumed to be owned by the creator, even in work for hire, unless an agreement to the contrary exists.  Whereas in Canada, and possibly elsewhere, in a work-for-hire situation the copyright is presumed to rest with whomever did the hiring unless there is a contract specifying otherwise.   At least this is my understanding.

Wonder what the law is in Italy, where the images were taken?

« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2009, 10:13 »
0
Wonder what the law is in Italy, where the images were taken?

I'd guess it would be governed by where the 'contract' originated rather than where the work was undertaken.

« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2009, 10:15 »
0
I find it hard to believe one of the biggest names in photography would do this, especially as it is likely she has had people using her work without permission in the past.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2009, 11:58 »
0
Unless he didn't get paid for the work he did, it sounded like they were meant to do a job together, and it fell through.. so there's a chance they maybe covered his expenses for the trip he made, but didn't pay him for the work, as the shoot had fallen through.. otherwise he wouldn't have a case really..

I think he's getting in there before she declares bankruptcy, it certainly seems to be heading that way  :(


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5658 Views
Last post August 30, 2006, 16:56
by hospitalera
11 Replies
6058 Views
Last post November 04, 2008, 15:08
by yingyang0
42 Replies
21709 Views
Last post August 20, 2012, 12:31
by stockastic
37 Replies
14617 Views
Last post July 24, 2012, 11:47
by Hummingbird
2 Replies
2306 Views
Last post September 30, 2012, 08:08
by digitalexpressionimages

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle