pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Latest Legal - this is going to be interesting  (Read 1289 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« on: October 08, 2019, 11:33 »
+2


StockDaebak

« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2019, 11:50 »
+3
Kinda reminds me of those graffiti vandals who spray paint buildings and then sue photographers who take photos of their "art" or sue building owners for painting over it. 

Sure will be interesting to see how it plays out in court should it make it to trial that's for sure.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2019, 09:18 »
0
Here's another one, anyone see a trend here?

https://www.eonline.com/news/1085809/emily-ratajkowski-is-being-sued-for-150-000-over-an-instagram-photo

Emily Ratajkowski Is Being Sued for $150,000 Over an Instagram Photo

"The 28-year-old supermodel is the latest celeb to be slapped with a lawsuit over a photo that she shared on social media. She and her company, Emrata Holdings Inc., are being sued by photographer and professional paparazzi, Robert O'Neil.

In the court documents, obtained by E! News, O'Neil filed the lawsuit against Ratajkowski in the Southern District of New York, citing copyright infringement. He claims the Gone Girl actress didn't license his photograph nor did she get permission or consent from him to post it to her Instagram page."

« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2019, 09:55 »
+6
I had a local brewery grab an instagram photo of mine from Oktoberfest two years ago and use it on their instagram.  I decided to be nice and I got a six pack out of it, and I'm trying to add a pizza on that as well.  Guess I shot too low, lol.

« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2019, 10:39 »
0
Adriana Lima shared one of my images on Instagram once, it got 88,914 likes and 2,094 comments, on facebook it got 4,500 likes, 224 comments and 641 shares. As far as I know that's as viral as I've got and I didn't even get a credit, but once they are out in the wild who would know who owns the copyright.

« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2019, 12:17 »
+1
Quote
Here's another one, anyone see a trend here?

yup! people realizing how hard is to become an infuencer, try to get profit from established ones!

From last generation's  instamatic to the millenial ....insta-victims!

:D :P

Edit, yes they have the right to claim profit from their work.
Yes instagramers using watermarked or unauthorized work should pay as everyone else.

« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2019, 13:01 »
+2
once they are out in the wild who would know who owns the copyright.

Ignorance of ownership is no excuse. And, in any case, if you don't help yourself to stuff you don't own you are not going to end up on the wrong side of a claim.

« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2019, 14:14 »
0
once they are out in the wild who would know who owns the copyright.

Ignorance of ownership is no excuse. And, in any case, if you don't help yourself to stuff you don't own you are not going to end up on the wrong side of a claim.

You're not wrong, but there is a big difference in theory and practice.  In microstock terms, with RF licenses and the meager sums they earn not making it worthwhile getting copyright registrations for each image, it would be practically impossible to sue anyone.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2019, 11:56 »
0
once they are out in the wild who would know who owns the copyright.

Ignorance of ownership is no excuse. And, in any case, if you don't help yourself to stuff you don't own you are not going to end up on the wrong side of a claim.

You're not wrong, but there is a big difference in theory and practice.  In microstock terms, with RF licenses and the meager sums they earn not making it worthwhile getting copyright registrations for each image, it would be practically impossible to sue anyone.

Unless that person was a famous star and you took the photo, then it might be worthwhile to copyright the image and sue them? Minor detail, you have 90 days to copyright an image after the use. That might even be, discovery of the illegal use. But any way you want to slice it, 90 days. I wonder how much these two cases will settle for? Asking for $150,000 doesn't mean they will get that. And the lawyers will take a nice chunk of whatever is won, if anything.

This is a lesson and I'm sure celebs will learn they can't just steal the images, even if it's their own image.  8)

I had a local brewery grab an instagram photo of mine from Oktoberfest two years ago and use it on their instagram.  I decided to be nice and I got a six pack out of it, and I'm trying to add a pizza on that as well.  Guess I shot too low, lol.


I'd call that a win.

« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2019, 12:12 »
0
once they are out in the wild who would know who owns the copyright.

Ignorance of ownership is no excuse. And, in any case, if you don't help yourself to stuff you don't own you are not going to end up on the wrong side of a claim.

You're not wrong, but there is a big difference in theory and practice.  In microstock terms, with RF licenses and the meager sums they earn not making it worthwhile getting copyright registrations for each image, it would be practically impossible to sue anyone.

Unless that person was a famous star and you took the photo, then it might be worthwhile to copyright the image and sue them? Minor detail, you have 90 days to copyright an image after the use. That might even be, discovery of the illegal use. But any way you want to slice it, 90 days. I wonder how much these two cases will settle for? Asking for $150,000 doesn't mean they will get that. And the lawyers will take a nice chunk of whatever is won, if anything.

This is a lesson and I'm sure celebs will learn they can't just steal the images, even if it's their own image.  8)


They don't learn very fast as similar cases have been going on for a while now, but those photos are not microstock or RF and their agencies are willing to get involved, would ours? no.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2019, 12:30 »
0
once they are out in the wild who would know who owns the copyright.

Ignorance of ownership is no excuse. And, in any case, if you don't help yourself to stuff you don't own you are not going to end up on the wrong side of a claim.

You're not wrong, but there is a big difference in theory and practice.  In microstock terms, with RF licenses and the meager sums they earn not making it worthwhile getting copyright registrations for each image, it would be practically impossible to sue anyone.

Unless that person was a famous star and you took the photo, then it might be worthwhile to copyright the image and sue them? Minor detail, you have 90 days to copyright an image after the use. That might even be, discovery of the illegal use. But any way you want to slice it, 90 days. I wonder how much these two cases will settle for? Asking for $150,000 doesn't mean they will get that. And the lawyers will take a nice chunk of whatever is won, if anything.

This is a lesson and I'm sure celebs will learn they can't just steal the images, even if it's their own image.  8)


They don't learn very fast as similar cases have been going on for a while now, but those photos are not microstock or RF and their agencies are willing to get involved, would ours? no.

Valid point, but if we can go to court or before some commission, on our own, without expensive lawyers, maybe there's a little hope?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2570 Views
Last post April 07, 2008, 09:16
by Alatriste
3 Replies
1357 Views
Last post April 07, 2012, 09:47
by pixel86
14 Replies
3319 Views
Last post May 05, 2016, 12:31
by Justanotherphotographer
2 Replies
1582 Views
Last post August 02, 2016, 02:15
by hairybiker777
28 Replies
3627 Views
Last post May 12, 2019, 03:47
by FrankyDM

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results