RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘infringement’

Nikon is the latest camera company sued by DigiMedia Tech over alleged patent infringement

01 Jul

DigiMedia Tech, LLC, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against yet another camera company, this time going after Nikon over its alleged infringement of three different US patents. This lawsuit follows similar infringement cases brought against Olympus, Fujifilm and JK Imaging, all of them also over the alleged infringement of digital camera technology patents.

DigiMedia Tech is a non-practicing entity (NPE) of IPInvestments Group, which received many US patents from Intellectual Ventures LLC in November 2019. Following the patent acquisition, DigiMedia Tech has filed lawsuits against several companies over their alleged infringement of these patents — in the latest one involving Nikon, the company claims infringement of US patents No. 6,914,635, No. 7,715,476 and No. 6,545,706.

The ‘635 patent was first filed in 2001 by Nokia Mobile Phones; it involves a microminiature zoom system designed for digital cameras. The ‘476 patent was first filed in 1999 and then again in 2005; it covers a ‘system, method and article of manufacture’ related to a digital camera’s ability to track a subject’s head. The third and final patent in the lawsuit, ‘706, was filed in 1999 and likewise covers head-tracking camera technology.

The infringement lawsuit specifically names Nikon’s Coolpix A1000 as a model that allegedly infringes the ‘635 patent and the Nikon P900RM ‘and similar products’ as allegedly infringing the ‘706 and ‘476 patents. Among other things, the DigiMedia Tech lawsuit wants Nikon to pay ‘damages in an amount to be determined at trial for Defendants’ infringement, which amount cannot be less than a reasonable royalty.’

It’s unclear how much this could amount to, financially speaking. Likewise, Nikon hasn’t yet commented on the infringement lawsuit.

DigiMedia Tech’s decision to sue Nikon isn’t surprising in light of its recent activity. On May 29, the NPE filed patent infringement lawsuits against Fujifilm and Olympus, alleging that both have used digital camera technologies in select camera models that infringe on its US patents. Following that, DigiMedia Tech filed the Nikon lawsuit referenced above, then a similar complaint against JK Imaging, the company behind Kodak PIXPRO cameras, on June 24 in California Central District Court.

A full list of DigiMedia Tech’s lawsuits, including related documents, can be found through the Unified Patents portal.

A summary of each of the lawsuits DigiMedia Tech, LLC currently has against a number of camera manufacturers.

The NPE practice of exploiting acquired patents has been heavily criticized for years. These companies oftentimes don’t actually practice the invention detailed by the patent and usually don’t sell processes or products related to them. These non-practicing entities instead enforce the patent rights against companies allegedly infringing them, doing so to obtain licensing payments or some other type of revenue, such as royalties or damages, on the acquired patents.

Though not all NPEs exploit acquired patents, there are those that do. Ones that operate aggressively and file large numbers of lawsuits in order to cast a wide net to see what they catch are colloquially referred to as ‘patent trolls.’

In 2011, the Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal published a large PDF document titled ‘Indirect Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights by Corporations and Investors’ that details NPEs and the ways they may be used. The discussion is extensive and ideal for understanding the reasoning behind these lawsuits, stating in part that patent infringement lawsuits from NPEs may be, among other things, used by:

…a sponsoring entity against a competitor to achieve a corporate goal of the sponsor. A corporation or investor, by serving as the sponsor for an IP privateering engagement, can employ third-party IPRs as competitive tools. The privateer, a specialized form of non-practicing entity (NPE), asserts the IPRs against target companies selected by the sponsor. The sponsor’s benefits do not typically arise directly from the third party’s case against a target, but arise consequentially from the changed competitive environment brought about by the third party’s IPR assertion.

Of course, DigiMedia Tech’s own reasons for filing suits against these camera companies are unclear and it’s impossible to say whether there would be an indirect benefit for a competing company as a result of these allegations. As these cases are only days and weeks old, the outcome of each lawsuit is yet to be seen.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Nikon is the latest camera company sued by DigiMedia Tech over alleged patent infringement

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Photographer sues Microsoft for $2.25M, alleges copyright infringement of 15 images

03 Jun

Microsoft has been sued over alleged copyright infringement by photographer Matilde Gattoni, who has accused the corporation of using several of her images for an MSN article without permission or a proper license. The lawsuit was filed on May 19 in the Southern District of New York and seeks damages potentially amounting to $ 150,000 per image allegedly infringed upon.

Gattoni’s images are featured in an article titled ‘These are the women leading China’s wine revolution,’ which appears on the Wall Street Journal’s website and on the MSN website, which includes a Washington Post header on the article, indicating that it is a syndicated work. Before both of those posts, the article with the same images was published in December 2018 by SCMP.

The new lawsuit is directed only at Microsoft, which is accused of using the images from that article on its MSN news website without permission or license.

The lawsuit alleges, in part:

Microsoft is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publically display, distribute and/or use the Photographs … Upon information and belief, the foregoing acts of infringement by Microsoft have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

Gattoni’s images are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The lawsuit seeks either actual damages, among other things, or statutory damages up to $ 150,000 per copyrighted image allegedly infringed upon. The MSN article contains a total of 15 of Gattoni’s images, which, assuming Microsoft paid $ 150,000 for each, would amount to $ 2,250,000.

The legal document is, at this point in time, quite short with no mention of the Washington Post, the header for which is featured on the MSN article. It’s unclear what license the WaPo received for the article and images, how that license may impact MSN’s use of the content and, ultimately, the viability of the copyright lawsuit.

This isn’t Gattoni’s first copyright lawsuit. As we detailed in 2017, Gattoni had sued the clothing retailer Tibi over its alleged use of her photos without permission or license. In that case, the lawsuit had accused Tibi of cropping one of Gattoni’s Instagram images, which had been published alongside a copyright notice; its copyright registration was still pending in the US at that time, however.

In that case, the judge had ruled that while Gattoni could go after Tibi with a DMCA claim, the copyright infringement claim couldn’t proceed because the copyright registration was still pending at the time. Photographers can register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office through its online eCO registration portal.

Microsoft is the latest in a long line of big companies and news publications sued over alleged copyright infringement. In April, for example, a New York court ruled that digital media website Mashable didn’t infringe upon an image copyright by embedding an image a photographer had uploaded to Instagram after a long squabble over the matter. Likewise, photographer Carol M. Highsmith sued Getty Images for $ 1 billion in July 2016 over its alleged infringement of more than 18,000 of her images.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Photographer sues Microsoft for $2.25M, alleges copyright infringement of 15 images

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Profoto prepares to sue Godox over alleged A1 light patent infringement

19 Mar

Swedish lighting company Profoto is preparing to file a patent infringement lawsuit against Godox, according to Fotosidan. The complaint targets the newly listed Godox V1, which Profoto alleges is in violation of multiple patents it filed for its own A1 light. The Profoto A1 round head flash was launched in September 2017, a year before Godox introduced its cheaper V1 alternative at Photokina 2018.

The Profoto A1 costs $ 995 USD; though pricing information for the Godox V1 hasn’t been revealed, the product is expected to be cheaper than Profoto’s model. The Godox V1 sports a number of similarities with the A1, including a round head design, Fresnel lens, magnetic modifier mount, and LED modelling lights.

Speaking to Fotosidan, Profoto CEO Anders Hedebark said the company spoke with Godox about its V1 light during Photokina 2018, and that it has continued to reach out to Godox in the months since. Profoto has filed seven patents related to its A1, which spent four years in development.

‘We spend a lot of time and money on development and will protect our investments,’ Hedebark said, also warning that manufacturers and other companies may face lawsuits if they market the Godox V1. ‘It feels like we have an obligation to act.’

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Profoto prepares to sue Godox over alleged A1 light patent infringement

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Corephotonics files patent infringement suit against Apple – again

02 May

In November 2017 we reported that Israel-based company Corephotonics—which is best known for its smartphone dual-camera systems—had filed a patent infringement case against Apple in federal court.

The company claimed that Apple had used Corephotonics’ dual-camera zoom technology in the iPhone 7 Plus without any authorization or licensing agreement. Previously Corephotonics had demoed its technology to Apple and received positive feedback. However, the iPhone makers refused a licensing deal, suggesting Corephotonics patents could be infringed with little consequence.

A second lawsuit has now been filed to also include the newer iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X models. In addition it covers another patent that was only granted in January 2018, as Patently Apple reports. This makes the claim slightly confusing as both the iPhone 8 Plus and X were developed and released earlier than the patent was granted.

Things are made even more complicated by the fact that Corephotonics investors include Foxconn and chipmaker MediaTek, both of which are Apple suppliers. We’ll make sure to keep an eye on things and see how this case develops.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Corephotonics files patent infringement suit against Apple – again

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Judge rules that embedding a photo tweet is still copyright infringement

17 Feb

In a court case that could fundamentally change what constitutes copyright infringement online, a New York district judge has ruled that embedding a tweet that contains a copyright protected photo does, in fact, constitute a copyright violation. If the ruling is upheld, its impact across the internet is hard to understate.

The case involves a photographer, Justin Goldman, who sued several major publications including Time, Vox, Breitbart, and others, when they embedded someone else’s tweet of his copyright-protected photo of NFL star Tom Brady. Judge Katherine B. Forrest is ruling in favor of Goldman, writing:

…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 them from this result.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points out, this ruling rejects a decade-old legal precedent set by the Ninth Circuit Court in a 2007 ruling called “Perfect 10 v. Amazon.” That case ruled that the company hosting the content—Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.—was liable, and absolved the company or publication or person who actually embeds the content. This, in essence, is how the internet has worked ever since.

Some sites, like YouTube, give creators the option to limit embedding so that only sites they specify (or nobody at all) can embed the content on their own platform, but others like Instagram and Twitter offer no such control. If your account is public, and you share a copyright-protected photo on it that goes viral, you can expect it to crop up on any number of outside websites, publications, and blogs with nary a permission request.

Of course, if it’s your own share, you could always take down the original Tweet or Instagram post or shift your account to private, breaking all of those embeds all at once. You (or the original poster) could also change what the post says or even swap out the file that shows up under that embed. But irrespective of those things, up until now, you had no legal case against the people or publications embedding your photo, since they have no control over what the hosting server will provide with that embed code—this is called the “server” test.

According to this ruling, embedding the DPReview tweet above without permission from the original creator of the GIF constitutes copyright infringement.

The server test is what Judge Forrest ultimately rejected, and if the ruling is upheld, it could apply to more than just embedding a tweet. As the EFF explains, the wording is broad enough that “the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking,” which could “threaten millions of ordinary Internet users with infringement liability.”

Appeals will no doubt be filed, and a closer look at the ruling and the standard practice of embedding on the internet may very well lead to its being overturned. But if it’s not, expect it to be open season for social media copyright infringement cases.

If you’d like to dive deeper, you can read the full ruling for yourself at this link.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Judge rules that embedding a photo tweet is still copyright infringement

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Zillow and VHT appeal $4 million copyright infringement ruling

21 Jul

Real estate listing firm Zillow Group and photography firm VHT have been locked in a huge copyright lawsuit over Zillow’s alleged infringement of thousands of VHT’s real estate images for years now, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to end any time soon.

VHT originally filed the suit against Zillow Group in 2015, alleging that tens of thousands of its images were used without permission on both the Zillow.com website and Zillow Digs. Though the claims regarding Zillow.com were dismissed last year, the legal matter has persisted over alleged infringement on Zillow Digs.

This past February, VHT was awarded $ 8.24 million in statutory damages and $ 79,875 in actual damages by a jury over copyrighted images that appeared without authorization on Zillow Digs. The matter took another turn last month, however, when a judge slashed that figure in half, citing lack of evidence to prove that most of the 28,000+ images were ever viewed by users.

Following that, both VHT and Zillow Group petitioned the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week in an effort to have the lower court’s ruling overturned. The case remains ongoing.

This isn’t the first legal row Zillow has been involved in over image copyright issues. The company was recently in the news over legal threats it issued against blogger Kate Wagner of ‘McMansion Hell’ over her use of photos reportedly sourced in part from Zillow’s website. It was soon revealed that Zillow did not own the copyrights to those images, but was instead attempting to enforce third-party contracts to which Wagner was not a party. The company publicly stated that it would not pursue legal actions against Wagner over what her attorneys called fair use of the images.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Zillow and VHT appeal $4 million copyright infringement ruling

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Andy Warhol estate preemptively sues photographer over infringement claims

18 Apr

Photographer Lynn Goldsmith has been sued by The Andy Warhol Foundation following her alleged claims that the artist infringed upon a photo she took of musician Prince in 1981. The lawsuit appears to be a preemptive strike against Goldsmith; it argues that Warhol merely ‘drew inspiration’ from the photo to create an entirely new – and therefore infringement-free – image.

At the heart of the issue is a 1981 publicity photo of Prince taken by Goldsmith, who has allegedly raised issues with the artist’s estate over claims that Warhol’s ‘The Prince Series’ artwork infringes her copyright. The lawsuit seeks to establish that the artist’s work (made in 1984) is a new creation, thereby preventing any future potential lawsuits brought by the photographer against Warhol’s estate.

The lawsuit highlights elements of Warhol’s work that deviate from Goldsmith’s photograph, including, ‘substantially heavier makeup’ around the eyes, as well as a different angle of the head. According to The Wrap, Warhol’s estate is seeking a declaratory judgement stating both that the statute of limitations has run out on any possible infringement claims by Goldsmith, and likewise that the artist’s work does not violate the photographer’s copyright.

Via: The Wrap, US District Court via Scribd
Homepage photo By Jack Mitchell, CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Andy Warhol estate preemptively sues photographer over infringement claims

Posted in Uncategorized

 

ImageRights – Finding and Pursuing Copyright Infringement of Your Images

11 Sep

PWC-Image-Rights-11Image Rights (imagerights.com) is a middleman for those of us not in tune with the various legal systems, as they pertain to unauthorized use of our images. It’s an opportunity to go after copyright infringement (entities who use your photo work without your permission) and effectively hire a lawyer in a number of countries. It’s also a discovery service to find out where you images are being used.

It’s not perfect, and does not pertain to every case of copyright infringement, but it is a useful tool for those with a lot of online images. This article is an overview of the service, as an in-depth how-to would be very lengthy.

How it Works

Getting Started

Let’s take a look at the dashboard of Image Rights.

PWC-Image-Rights-01

I like that Image Rights (IR) uses a simple flow diagram to help me visualize what goes where, and what comes next. Images are uploaded by you (upper left), then when a discovery happens (upper middle) there are some options. Starting with the Inbox, you are shown all the current matches for your images. It is then up to you to filter the noise form the signal.

PWC-Image-Rights-02-Edit

I have redacted the names to protect the (potentially) innocent or guilty, except for National Geographic. I left them up there so you can see the details. That was a photo I entered in their contest, so I know that is an authorized use of my image.

IR gives you a link to where the image is stored (it will also show you items that are hot-linked) and where it is used. At this point, you click through the links to see if the image is actually used on the site (sometimes it no longer exists) and if it really is yours.

Opening a Case

Clicking the check box next to an image means you want to open a case to start an investigation. Doing so brings up the Prepare Case screen (see below).

PWC-Image-Rights-03

Here is your chance to triple check the image use, let IR know if the image is registered with the US Copyright Office (USCO), and give them details of your normal fees.

Down at the bottom is where you finish your submission and provide more details. I often have images show up from articles posted here on dPS, that are scrapped by a number of disrespectful sites. I will mention the total number of images and their use. Real people read these comments, and they help clarify all the details to prevent too much back and forth during the discovery phase.

PWC-Image-Rights-04-Edit

Once you click Submit, then poof! Away it goes to be reviewed.

Sorting the Wheat from the Chaff

Getting back to the Inbox for a moment, there are more options than just opening a case. Take a look at the drop down offered next to each item.

PWC-Image-Rights-05

The Sightings Folders explains each of these.

PWC-Image-Rights-06

Those are my real world numbers after using the service for 18 months, along with explanations that most of these things will not be followed up by IR. I use the Authorized and My Site options often, as IR will find my images here on dPS, as well as other sites where I write. This is why they have the “Power User” section at the bottom of that screen; to help you create Quick Move buttons if you find you are clicking the same things over and over again.

Where it Goes Next

Back to the dashboard:

PWC-Image-Rights-01

After submission, your claim will be assessed by real people at IR, then it will be taken on one of three paths.

  1. Case Closed: Various reasons can close a case. Often this is because the claim is outside of countries where IR has legal relationships.
  2. Takedown: The case may have merit, but recovery prospects look low, or no firm will take on the case. These items are moved to “Recommended for Takedown”. These are up to you to complete and sometimes recovery of a fee is still possible on your own.
  3. Recommended for Recovery: this is where you hope your case will end up. You will receive an email asking you what you want to do. Here, the law firm has given input to IR about how much should be asked from the infringer and you are given options to pursue or not.

If you agree to the terms, the case will move to the active stage, and the law firm will being their lawyering activities to attempt to recover a fee from the infringer. I have seen cases sit open for 6-12 months. My oldest is now 16 months. Sometimes it takes a while.

Winning, or Not

In an over-simplified view of the site, cases that are open will either be won or lost. Sometimes they are closed because of no action.

If you win, yay! IR will send you an email, and a note will be added to your case describing how much was recovered and what your cut will be. Payments can take a month or two to filter through.

What Does it Cost?

ImageRights has three basic levels of service.

PWC-Image-Rights-07

The basic level allows you to upload 1000 images, costs $ 50 each time you open a case, and allows you to keep 50% of any money recovered from infringers.

The Pro level allows you to upload 50,000 images, costs $ 495/year and gives a 55% payout. It also comes with three free USCO registrations (more on that in a minute).

The Premier level allows you to upload 125,000 images, costs $ 1295/year, pays out 60%, and comes with five USCO registrations.

How Photographers can Use ImageRights

The most obvious use of IR is to find out who is using your images, and if you choose, make them stop and/or pay for the use of your image.

As their Basic service is free and includes up to 1000 images, it’s a good way to kick the tires and see if the service is useful to you. Be prepared for a bit of noise at first as the crawlers are given your fresh files. Also, if you have some common photos of icons (e.g. The Taj Mahal) be prepared for some false positives.

In the past year I have recovered more money using IR that I have sold via Alamy, my stock photography host. That stat is also common among the my friends who use the service, and also sell stock photos.

I have also found it is a good way to build your CV and electronic tear sheets. One of my clients uses my images in their advertising and is allowed to distribute them to re-sellers of their service for advertising. I can see where the images are used and potentially find new clients who are in need of similar images.

Copyright Registration

IR also has a useful USA copyright registration feature. You can register up to 750 images at a time in one process.

PWC-Image-Rights-08-Edit

You can do this in the Images area, by selecting individual images you wish to register, then clicking “Register” at the top. Or you can start a registration from the USCO Registration tab, which will eventually loop you around to selecting individual items.

PWC-Image-Rights-09

The fee is $ 89 ($ 55 of which is the USCO fee) for Basic members and the other tiers each get a number of registrations free. You will receive a certificate in the mail, and an email with all the file names listed. IR will also remember which items are in process, or have finished registration, when it comes to opening cases. They will even put this data into the metadata of your image file if you use Lightroom!

Lightroom Publishing Service

Lastly, IR has a Lightroom Publishing Service which is a godsend for those of us addicted to the Adobe world of image edits. Create folders in the service just like you would in any other service and then publish them to the site.

PWC-Image-Rights-10

IR then scours the Internet looking for new matches. Plus, if you register any images with the US Copyright Office, that information will be shown in the image metadata inside Lightroom.

Limits of the system

First, there are the countries where IR has no partner legal firm. China, Colombia, Mali; these are some of the many countries without well-defined, and fair copyright protection systems.

Second, there are many uses which just aren’t worth a lawyer’s time to pursue. Blogs, image share sites, and social media platforms are a few of the instances where the payout, or lack of a chance of payout, means no firm will take your case. You are still free to pursue action yourself though.

Also, the bots that run the checks don’t catch everything. Other services like TinEye and Google Image Search are useful in finding other cases of infringement. IR does have a feature called ClaimCapture that let’s you manually enter an infringement in order to purse, so using other search sites is helpful.

People can also simply fail to respond and often there is little you can do. I had a law firm, of all people, blatantly (website banner) use one of my images without permission. They were contacted by IR’s law firm and I noticed the image was promptly removed, but they simply ignored future requests for payment. Knowing that the cost of taking another firm to court would outweigh the benefit, this case was closed after a year of non-response.

Most-stolen-image-rights

This is my most found image, it’s been taken and used on 15 sites without my permission.

How much time does it take

There is a learning curve at first, for sure. I spent maybe an hour a day at first, or after I uploaded a major amount of images. But like anything, I started seeing what was actionable and what was just not worth it. Now it is about 10 minutes a day, as things are more calm. At first it is a lot of work until you start seeing the types of sites taking your images. I notice Russian or Chinese or Nepali sites and I know I have no chance of recovery, so I put them in the “no chance for recovery” type piles instead of taking the time to submit them, only to have IR reject them. That part is just learned from doing. But it was certainly worth it for me as for pay out.

Conclusion

It’s not a perfect system. If you opt for the Pro plan there is risk of not seeing a return. So far it has worked okay for me, but it’s not like I will retire on all the illegal use of my photos. I like that it gives me some recourse when there is an obvious infringement (like Yahoo using my photo and removing my copyright). It also highlights sites where a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice is needed. Lastly, it is a relatively easy way to register your images with the US Copyright Office.

Do you do anything to protect your stock photography? What services or methods do you use? If you do photography as a hobby, it may not be worthwhile for you to go to all this trouble. But if you make a living from your images you may want to look into ImageRights.

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
tablet_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_tab-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78623” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
mobile_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_mob-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78158” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

The post ImageRights – Finding and Pursuing Copyright Infringement of Your Images by Peter West Carey appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on ImageRights – Finding and Pursuing Copyright Infringement of Your Images

Posted in Photography

 

Getty Images sued for $1 billion over alleged copyright infringement

29 Jul
Photographer Carol Highsmith with her Phase One camera. Photo via The Lyda Hill Texas Collection of Photographs in Carol M. Highsmith’s America Project, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.

Photographer Carol M. Highsmith is suing Getty Images for $ 1 billion over its alleged copyright infringement of 18,755 of her photos. The lawsuit, which was filed in a New York federal court on July 25, alleges that Getty Images has been charging fees to license her images without her permission – the same images she has provided to the Library of Congress for free use by the public. In addition to distributing her images, the lawsuit alleges that Getty did not give Highsmith proper credit for her photos.

The legal claim alleges statutory damages at up to $ 468,875,000. But because of a ruling against Getty in Morel v. Getty, a previous copyright case, the damages can reportedly be tripled to deter ‘bad faith business practices’. Highsmith became aware of Getty’s alleged copyright infringement after, she says, it sent her a letter accusing her of infringing the copyright of her own photograph by posting it on her own non-profit organization’s website.

The claim states, in part, ‘The defendants have apparently misappropriated Ms. Highsmith’s generous gift to the American people. [Getty Images and subsidiaries] are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees… but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner.” The lawsuit also claims Highsmith’s reputation has suffered a serious blow as a result of Getty’s alleged actions. 

Via: PDNPulse, Hyperallergic

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Getty Images sued for $1 billion over alleged copyright infringement

Posted in Uncategorized

 

How To Deal With Copyright Infringement

11 Jan

Intellectual Property Rights Infringement

 Intellectual Property Rights Infringement

Hi FashionPhotograhyBlog.com readers, 

Today, we have a special guest at FPBlog, Berlin-based fashion photographer, Per Zennstrom. Per has previously shot for known brands such as Absolut Vodka, Bentley, Bon Magazine, Dior, Elle, Guy Laroche, H&M, Marie Claire, Porsche, Rolling Stone, Schwarzkopf and Toni & Guy.  He shares an experience that happened to him involving copyright infringement and demonstrates how to deal with intellectual property (IP) infringement in a real world scenario.   

 


Intellectual Property Rights Infringement – As an image maker it is very common that I find my images used on the web without authorization, or payment; in most cases the culprits are teenage bloggers who have grown up thinking that using other peoples images and other intellectual property is somehow OK. Unfortunately this is the mindset today but there is also something else at play, it’s just so easy to copy|paste, that embarking on the rather tedious process of securing the rights to publish is not even on the map. Everyone has this type of problem; writers, musicians, photographers, filmmaker.  It’s just so easy to do!

 

To me this is not really a ”digital” problem.  I can tell you stories of how I have come across images on sides of buses and in foreign newspapers well before digital was the main stream workflow.  Of course, it goes without saying that the digitalization of images and other media, and the completely ubiquitous digital ecosystem has made it a lot easier (on the order of magnitude) for images to spread and some might argue that this actually make it a “new” problem. Today the duplication, publication and consumption of media is completely seamless and the cost is virtually zero – and that is new. But sometimes images are used by much bigger and “older” organisations, by Old Media, that should know better and I recently became aware of that a major, world-renowned institution had been using one image of mine on one of their blogs and this article is a short recap on how I went about dealing with this situation.

 

I don’t remember exactly how I came across my image on that blog post, maybe I had done an image search or followed some links, but there it was, one of my very old images taken way, way before anything digital was even a remote possibility. This image was taken even before I had started calling myself “photographer” I had to look both one, two and three times before it really sank in that that was my image being used by this absolute world renowned, authority organisation. In this case I decided to take action and I wrote both a formal letter and an email, do the proper research to make sure that you speak to the right person – if not it’s just a waste of time.

 

I will leave out the names of the people and the name of this organisation. Below follows the actual negotiations. In this case, there was a happy end and I got my much coveted back-link (which in my opinion will be worth much, much more from an SEO perspective than a few hundred dollars) and everyone is happy. I’d like to point out that the people on “the other side” were extremely polite and professional and I really got the feeling that they were working hard to resolve this in a way that would make everyone happy. This is probably not a typical case sadly.

 

My Initial Letter:

 

“I recently noticed that you are showing an image of mine on: _____  located at the url: _____  without my knowledge or permission.  I’m flattered that  _____ like my work enough to use it on your site but I’d like to remind you of the basic things about IP rights and etiquette. By publishing my work without my permission, knowledge or payment you are infringing on my intellectual property rights!  Before publishing anything – any publisher MUST make sure they have secured the right to publish this material. Period.

 

I’m very well aware of the fact that digital images get copied and sent around and spread on the web (I frequently find my images used on-line without permission or payment) and I also see the advantages of this situation. The upside is of course that I get my name out there and that people have the chance to follow a link back to my website.  In your case I’m unfortunately in a lose-lose situation… My image is used without permission – or payment – and I don’t get the credit and recognition for my 22 years of hard work as a photographer – or the time and effort that goes into producing the work that you found good enough to publish on your site.

 

I’m sure You can see my point here…

 

However, I’m not a whiner,  this is the reality of digital media today and as a photographer I have to accept certain things. I’m willing to accept some of this but I also have to ask publisher like You to respect and work with a minimum of etiquette and fairness

 

Looking forward to Your feedback on how we can resolve this situation”

 

Publishers Response 1:

 

I received your letter regarding the unauthorized use of one of your photographs on _____. The images we use in these blog posts are provided by the authors, and gaining image clearance is the author’s responsibility. I very much regret that the author of the post failed to do so in this instance, and I’m happy to redress the error.  Before we proceed, I just need to determine which image, specifically, is yours. The author used two images without attribution, one color, one black and white. Which of these is the image in question? Pending your response, the image will be removed immediately.

 

Thank you for your time, and my apologies for any inconvenience we have caused.
Sincerely,

 

My Answer 1

 

Dear _____,

Thank You for Your response.

 

I contacted _____ via regular mail – Your response  … but also via email – where _____ – responded to me and we started a email discussion over this matter.  I have cc’d _____ in this mail.

 

Maybe you both would like to take a moment and coordinate and then get back to me so we don’t have 2 separate discussions.  Looking forward hearing back from any of you two so this can be resolved.

 

Just so I’m 100% clear to you about my intentions…  Like a wrote in my letter and in my emails – my preferred solution would be a back link to my website from the _____blog post.  This really should not be much of a problem since the _____ is indeed linking out to numerous external websites in practically every post.

 

Below some examples from the front page of the types of websites that _____have linked back to:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/excalibur-1981 – movie-review site
https://readymag.com/shuffle/dieter-rams/ – online magazine/blog
http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en – audio equipment

 

Thank You very much.

 

Publishers Response 2:

 

Hi Per,  _____ and I spoke this morning, and we’ll resolve this straight away. Our apologies that the author of the post – who is not longer at _____ – did not seek the proper clearance with you before using the images. As I mentioned, we don’t have any budget for blog image rights, and as a rule don’t link back to artist’s personal websites (rather than the institutional links you list above), so we will immediately remove the image from the site. Thanks for your understanding.

 

All the best.

 

My Answer 2

 

Hi _____ !

 

OK – In this case I will have to invoice you for the usage of the image. I have attached my invoice to this mail. Not my preferred solution but since you have this rule of not linking to other artists websites – this is the way I have to go…  This is not something personal but since I started this discussion with you as a representative of ____ I need to tell you this.

 

I find my images used on the web without authorization constantly – in most cases there are teenage bloggers who have grown up thinking that using other peoples images and intellectual property is somehow OK. In these cases I usually just ask for a link back and most of the time people are happy to do that.  In this case however – you – _____ – the worlds most prestigious _____ – have used one of my images without checking and are now trying to shrug of your responsibilities by saying that you don’t have a budget. Saying that is completely irrelevant – since you have infringed already.

 

Just take a moment to reflect on this – that is a total lose-lose situation for me… My images are used and I don’t get anything for it – not even a link!  My invoice is for _____ which is absolutely reasonable considering the reach and nature of the infringement.

 

Thank you.

 

Publishers Response 3

 

Dear Mr. Zennström,

 

As I’m sure you can imagine, the rights of _____ are of paramount concern to _____, and once again I apologize for this situation. I’m sure you can also appreciate that, as a nonprofit, we do not have the budget to purchase image rights, which is precisely why it is our policy never to use images without proper attribution and clearance. This oversight is as distressing for us as it is for you. As I said, we cannot pay you for the use of the image, but we would be more than happy to put it back up with proper attribution in the image caption and a link to http://perzennstrom.com.

 

Here is the proposed caption:

 

Photo by Per Zennström. Courtesy of Per Zennström, http://perzennstrom.com

 

Also, if there is a different size or crop of the image that you would prefer to use (within reason, of course), feel free to send along a jpg. Otherwise we will replace the copy that originally appeared in the post. I hope you find this solution satisfactory. Once again, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience.

 

My Answer 3

 

Dear _____

 

What You propose is the perfect solution!  I have linked to 5 images of _____ in a bigger format (1000px wide) – please feel free to publish any number of them on this blog post with the caption You proposed.  Please download the images via this link.

 

I’m 100% happy with your proposal but in the case you can see yourself using a slightly different worded caption – that would be even better for me…  Photo by Per Zennstrom. Courtesy of photographer Per Zennstrom… where You use the anchor text “photographer Per Zennstrom” as the link.

 

I’m very happy we were able to come to an agreement on this.

 

Thank you very much for your time and effort.

 

 

Some advice on how to deal with publishers:

 

My #1 rule of thumb is that a back-link from a reasonably biggish blog or site is worth a lot more than a few hundred dollars. I’m not saying that you should let people publish Your images and just paying with a back-link. I’m saying that if  you have discovered unauthorized usage the most cost effective approach could be to ask for a back-link. Of course, if the image has been used in another context than editorial, for example advertising, that is a completely different matter. Stay professional and polite, don’t become overly emotional. Most publishers are actually eager to resolve this type of problems.

 

– Propose a solution that is is mutually beneficial and face saving.

 

– Accept the fact that going after these instances of IP rights infringement will take a lot of time and energy; choose your battles well.

 

– Send both an email and a formal letter (via snail mail); an old fashioned letter carries more weight.

 

– If you don’t get a response you need to do ask yourself a few hard questions. Will the eventual benefits of going after a reluctant, non-responsive publisher (jerks) outweigh the time, money and effort (not to mention the emotional drain) that you have to invest? If the answer is no, suck it up and move on. Hard, yes but your time and energy is better spent making great images than fighting wind mills.

 

– Mean what you say; if you threaten legal action you have to walk the walk and be ready to take action.

 

– There are a number of great places to read up more on this, I highly recommend Photo Attorney (especially for US photographers).

 

Do you have any experiences of copyright infringement of your photographic work before? Do you have you own suggestions that you would like to add to Per’s tips for dealing with IP rights infringement? Feel free to add your suggestions and comments in the comment section below.


Fashion Photography Blog

 
Comments Off on How To Deal With Copyright Infringement

Posted in Uncategorized