RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

Canon wins lawsuit against eBay sellers accused of peddling counterfeit batteries

18 Jan

Canon USA has announced a successful lawsuit against two eBay sellers who were allegedly peddling counterfeit ‘Canon’ batteries. The camera company had filed a complaint against the defendants in October 2019, claiming the sellers were using its trademarks and that doing so could ‘mislead the public as to the source and authenticity’ of the products, potentially to their peril.

The legal victory took place on December 12, 2019, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. According to Canon, the defendants in the case were barred from ‘infringing and counterfeiting the valuable Canon trademarks.’ The sellers will also be required to pay Canon a ‘significant amount of money,’ according to the camera company.

Below is a copy of the court documents, obtained by PetaPixel:

Counterfeit batteries put both the operator and their camera at risk, Canon explains on its website. These products may be poorly made and prone to overheating; they may also offer lackluster performance when compared to the real thing, resulting in frequent recharging and shorter lifetimes. Signs of a counterfeit battery include lack of an anti-hologram sticker on the bottom, modifications to the company’s logo and an inability to communicate with the camera.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Canon wins lawsuit against eBay sellers accused of peddling counterfeit batteries

Posted in Uncategorized

 

ACLU files First Amendment lawsuit against US government on behalf of 5 photojournalists

27 Nov

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sued the United States government on the behalf of five photojournalists who allege their rights were violated ‘on multiple separate occasions’ while reporting on conditions at the US-Mexico border. According to the ACLU, the Department of Homeland Security made a database of journalists and photojournalists who were reporting on US-Mexico border conditions and used this database to target, detain, and interrogate them.

The lawsuit was filed on the behalf of Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana and Ariana Drehsler, all of whom are professional photojournalists and U.S. citizens, according to the ACLU. The lawsuit alleges these individuals were among the journalists included in Homeland Security’s secret database.

The database allegedly contained the photojournalists’ names, birth dates, headshots, and information about whether they’d been interrogated. An ‘X’ was allegedly used to cross out the individuals who had already been interrogated, indicating that the ‘random’ secondary screenings and interrogations they were subjected to weren’t actually random.

Bing Guan said in a statement to the ACLU:

I was being targeted by my own government for reporting on conditions at the border.

The ACLU explains that photojournalists were detained when they attempted to reenter the United States, at which point they were allegedly interrogated about various matters ranging from their observations of the condition of the border and shelters to whether they could identify people from a series of headshots. Multiple photojournalists claim they were forced to reveal the images they had taken and that at least one officer had used a phone to snap images of the photos.

Forcing the photojournalists to disclose details about their sources and observations was a violation of the First Amendment, according to the ACLU, which calls the ‘disturbing actions’ a potential deterrent that may prevent other journalists from pursuing similar work.

The ACLU said in its announcement of the lawsuit:

‘That the government’s actions occurred at the border makes them no less unlawful … When the government tries to circumvent constitutional protections, we must hold it accountable. No journalist should have to fear government interference for having the persistence, courage, and commitment to expose the truth.’

The lawsuit can be read in full on the ACLU’s website. Plaintiffs seek an official declaration that their First Amendment rights were violated; they also want the records related to their interrogations to be expunged and more.

Via: ACLU

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on ACLU files First Amendment lawsuit against US government on behalf of 5 photojournalists

Posted in Uncategorized

 

B&H Photo accused of dodging millions in taxes in newly filed lawsuit

16 Nov

A newly filed lawsuit by the State of New York accuses electronics retailer B&H Foto & Electronics Corp of alleged tax fraud. The lawsuit, which was recently published on the New York Attorney General’s website, claims that B&H ‘intentionally underpaid sales tax on millions of dollars in receipts from its sales of cameras and other consumer electronics.’

The lawsuit claims that B&H failed to pay approximately $ 7 million in sales taxes on reimbursements it received from manufacturers on products sold with instant rebates to consumers. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that when a customer would purchase an item with an instant rebate through B&H, and the manufacturer of the camera gear would subsequently reimburse B&H for the difference, B&H didn’t pay taxes on that reimbursement money, which would be considered income. This ‘arrangement,’ the lawsuit alleges, took place for 13 years and was brought to the state’s attention by a whistleblower.

The lawsuit likewise claims:

B&H knew that it should have been paying the tax. B&H has repeatedly and explicitly acknowledged—internally, to outside vendors, and to a competitor—that under New York tax law, it owed sales tax on these reimbursements … And, even after B&H learned that the State was investigating it for failing to pay the sales taxes due on these reimbursements, B&H continued to underreport its sales taxes while simultaneously admitting to others that it knew the sales tax was, indeed, due.

The lawsuit goes into great detailed about alleged communications within B&H that reportedly prove the company knew that it was supposed to pay taxes on instant rebate reimbursements. In a statement to The Verge, however, B&H said that it ‘has done nothing wrong,’ and that the New York AG has ‘decided to attack’ a local company while ‘leaving the national online and retail behemoths unchallenged.’

New York is seeking repayment of the back taxes, interest, penalties, and damages related to the alleged tax fraud.

We have contacted B&H with a request to comment on the lawsuit and allegations; we will update this article accordingly if we receive a response.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on B&H Photo accused of dodging millions in taxes in newly filed lawsuit

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Apple loses patent lawsuit, will have to pay RED royalties for ProRes RAW format

13 Nov

Apple has failed in an attempt to over-throw patents held by RED that govern methods for compressing Raw video, leaving the company open to paying royalties on its ProRes RAW file format. Apple had tried to show that the technology RED patented around its RedCode codec was obvious and shouldn’t have been granted protection, but the court rejected the claim leaving RED secure to license the lossless compression technique to camera, software and accessories manufacturers.

It seems that Apple had wanted to avoid paying royalties on the ProRes RAW format it introduced via Final Cut Pro last year, and which is used in some DJI drones, some Atomos recorders and a few other products. The problem is that RED claims ProRes RAW uses technology it owns for compressing those RAW files to make them manageable to work with. RedCode allows Raw video to be captured and compressed in-camera in much the same way that stills cameras do, allowing data directly from the sensor to be recorded and made available for very flexible post-production manipulation.

RED’s technology allows files to be compressed by ratios of up to 22:1, though it says 3:1 is mathematically lossless and 8:1 is visually lossless. The value of this is not only that it allows video files to be reduced in size, but also that for the same size file videographers can record in higher resolutions to provide the means for heavy cropping and frame splitting in post-production.

RED President Jarred Land posted on the RED User forum that he was glad the company’s technology remained protected but that the dispute between RED and Apple was just a means to finding where each stood technology-wise so they could continue to work together. He wrote:

‘We are pleased to see our REDCODE patents withstand another challenge.

To be clear, as I mentioned before, this never really was Apple vs. RED. It has always been APPLE + RED, and this was all part of the process defining how we work together in the future.

RED integration with Apple’s METAL framework for realtime R3D playback is coming along well and the work that the two teams are doing together is exceeding expectations. We are very excited for the new Mac Pro and the new XDR pro display and the power they bring to the entire RED workflow.’

The ‘another challenge’ refers to a similar attempt made by Sony in 2013.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Apple loses patent lawsuit, will have to pay RED royalties for ProRes RAW format

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Lawsuit claims Apple’s dual-camera setup in recent iPhones infringes on 2003 patent

12 Oct

A lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Tuesday claims the cameras in Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus and newer dual-camera models infringe on a patent that was granted in 2003 and is based on an invention from 1999.

Plaintiffs Yanbin Yu and Zhongxuan Zhang allege Apple’s dual-cameras are in infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,289 for “Digital cameras using multiple sensors with multiple lenses”.

The patent describes methods for capturing multiple images using multiple lens and sensor arrays. The patent focuses on a four-camera setup that captures images on monochrome sensors and merges them into a single color image. According to the lawsuit Apple was aware of the existing patent as early as 2011.

The complaint also alleges that Apple’s own multi-sensor camera patent No. 8,115,825, “Electronic device with two image sensors.” which was filed for in 2008 and granted in 2012, claimed “many of the same features” as the patent from Yu and Zhang.

The plaintiffs note that Apple made significant investments into its dual-camera technology, acquiring 3D sensor specialist PrimeSense in 2013 and camera technology company LinX Imaging in 2015 but did not seek to license Yu and Zhang’s patent, launching several iPhone models knowing they were infringing on somebody else’s patent.

This is not the first time Apple has camera-related legal problems. Earlier this year Israel-based company CorePhotonics also files a lawsuit against the US company. We’ll continue to keep an eye on both cases.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Lawsuit claims Apple’s dual-camera setup in recent iPhones infringes on 2003 patent

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Video: How Tony and Chelsea Northrup won $40,000 in image theft lawsuit

25 May

Well-known photography educators Tony and Chelsea Northrup have published a new video that details the saga of a stolen photograph, and the eventual $ 40,000 settlement they received as a result of going after the offending party.

The image, a portrait of Chelsea originally taken for a book cover, was used by an Australian company to promote a smartphone selfie case with built-in LEDs. According to the duo, they became aware of the unauthorized usage in 2016 after someone who recognized the image alerted them. Tony sent the company an email requesting information, he explains in the video, but instead received a letter from a lawyer hired by the company.

The lawyer’s letter claimed that a graphic designer hired by the company to design the product packaging had acquired the image “from a website” and used it as a stock image without the company’s knowledge. As the Northrups note, a high-resolution version of the image is the first result on Google when searching for “ring light portrait.”

The company, via the lawyer’s letter, had stated that it would recall all of the products with that packaging and cease use of material containing the image. However, Tony explains that the duo continued to receive images from followers showing the cases—complete with the pilfered portrait—being sold in Australian and New Zealand stores.

That ultimately set in motion a long legal tussle that involved hiring an Australian attorney willing to deal with an international copyright case. The duo explain everything that went into this process and the eventual $ 40,000 in settlement payments that resulted, with Tony estimating the company spent around $ 60k total when including fees.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Video: How Tony and Chelsea Northrup won $40,000 in image theft lawsuit

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Monkey copyright lawsuit finally over, court rejects PETA’s claims

25 Apr
Photo: David Slater

PETA’s “monkey selfie” copyright lawsuit has finally, finally reached a satisfying ending. On Monday, a three-judge panel with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only humans can pursue copyright infringement claims, upholding a lower court’s decision after a judge refused to let PETA settle its way out of this likely conclusion.

In its ruling, the court said:

Affirming the district court’s dismissal of claims brought by a monkey, the panel held that the animal had constitutional standing but lacked statutory standing to claim copyright infringement of photographs known as the “MonkeySelfies.” … The panel held that the monkey lacked statutory standing because the Copyright Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits.

The ruling follows the Ninth Circuit’s decision earlier this month to reject PETA’s settlement dismissal request.

PETA had argued that the macaque named Naruto, not camera owner David Slater, owned the copyright because it took the image itself. Courts had expressed skepticism about PETA’s argument, also questioning whether the organization had a suitable relationship with the monkey to sue on its behalf.

In September 2017, PETA announced a settlement with Slater; it asked the Ninth Circuit Court to dismiss the case and vacate the lower court’s ruling. However, in a decision earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit indicated that it had rejected the request because it seemed to be PETA’s way to avoid establishing a precedent. The court had also stated:

As one of our colleagues once warned in a similar context, “courts must be particularly wary of abetting ‘strategic behavior’ on the part of institutional litigants whose continuing interest in the development in the law may transcend their immediate interest in the outcome of a particular case.”

The ruling doesn’t impact PETA’s settlement with Slater, which requires the photographer to donate 25% of future revenue from the image to charities that protect crested macaques in Indonesia.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Monkey copyright lawsuit finally over, court rejects PETA’s claims

Posted in Uncategorized

 

PETA monkey selfie lawsuit lives on, judge rejects attempted settlement

17 Apr
Photo: David Slater

It’s the copyright lawsuit that refuses to die. In September 2017, PETA finally settled its monkey selfie lawsuit with photographer David Slater, ending years of financially destructive litigation. However, a request to dismiss the case has since been rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which points out in a newly published order that it’s not required to honor the dismissal request.

The decision to proceed with a ruling appears to be the Ninth Circuit’s way of preventing PETA from dodging a legal outcome that would interfere with potential future litigation of a similar nature. The Court’s order states, in part, that:

…denying the motion to dismiss and declining to vacate the lower court judgement prevents the parties from manipulating precedent in a way that suits their institutional preferences.

The Ninth Circuit further narrows down the thought process behind continuing the lawsuit, stating in the order:

As one of our colleagues once warned in a similar context, “courts must be particularly wary of abetting ‘strategic behavior’ on the part of institutional litigants whose continuing interest in the development in the law may transcend their immediate interest in the outcome of a particular case.”

PETA’s settlement was anticipated last year after signs surfaced indicating the courts weren’t in the organization’s favor. In July 2017, for example, PETA’s attorney faced a series of questions from judges including whether the organization’s relationship with the monkey was of the nature that it could sue on the animal’s behalf. Before that, a federal judge in San Francisco found that the monkey doesn’t have legal standing to sue.

By settling—assuming the case were dismissed and a lower court’s judgement vacated—PETA could dodge a ruling that it may not like; a ruling that could establish a precedent that would prevent it from filing similar lawsuits on the behalf of animals in the future. The Ninth Circuit’s order also states:

We note that although PETA joins Appellants in the motions to dismiss the appeal and to vacate the district court judgment, and claims to have reached a settlement agreement with Appellees, it also points out that Naruto is not a party to the settlement agreement. It appears that the settlement agreement would not bar another attempt to file a new action.

A final ruling in the case is forthcoming.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on PETA monkey selfie lawsuit lives on, judge rejects attempted settlement

Posted in Uncategorized

 

PETA and David Slater settle copyright lawsuit over monkey selfie

14 Sep
Photo: David Slater

PETA has announced that it has settled its copyright lawsuit against photographer David Slater over his iconic “monkey selfie,” a self-portrait allegedly taken by a macaque named Naruto. The image went viral a few years ago, ultimately catching the attention of PETA, who argued that Naruto—not Slater—was the image’s legal copyright holder. This spurred a lawsuit that has dragged on for about two years.

The legal issues began shortly after the monkey selfie went viral. Various sites used the image without Slater’s permission and refused to cease use on the claim that Slater didn’t own the copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office didn’t prove helpful in the matter, having issued an official guidance stating that copyright could only be granted to a work that was created by a human.

PETA swooped in soon after, hitting Slater with a lawsuit in 2015 on behalf of Naruto, the macaque it claimed captured the photo (there’s some debate on this topic). The resulting legal spat drained Slater financially, but things began looking up this past summer when courts questioned whether PETA even had the legal standing to bring a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, among other things. As anticipated, the courts’ push against the lawsuit has seemingly spurred a settlement.

According to an announcement posted to PETA’s blog on Tuesday, Slater has agreed to settlement terms that require him to donate 25% of future revenue from the image to charities that protect macaques like Naruto. PETA still maintains that Naruto and other macaques like him are, “worthy of having legal ownership of their own intellectual property and holding other rights as members of the legal community.”

The settlement was not a victory for the photography community, however. NPR reports that both Slater’s legal team and PETA have jointly requested that the 9th Circuit Court throw out a ruling made by a lower court that found animals incapable of owning copyrights.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on PETA and David Slater settle copyright lawsuit over monkey selfie

Posted in Uncategorized

 

PETA is close to settling that ridiculous monkey selfie lawsuit

09 Aug
Photo: David Slater

PETA may be close to settling its lawsuit involving ‘Naruto’ the macaque monkey and a selfie it allegedly took using photographer David Slater’s camera. Per PETA’s 2015 legal claim, Naruto (the monkey) owns the copyright to the image, not Slater, because the animal took the selfie on its own—that lawsuit, which has dragged on for the better part of two years, has left Slater broke.

Slater’s troubles began shortly after the photo went viral, as multiple entities refused to remove the image from their publications on claims that Slater wasn’t the copyright owner. That boiled over into an official guidance issued by the U.S. Copyright Office, which stated that, under U.S. law, a copyright can only be issued on work created by a human. This effectively left the image without a copyright.

Joining the bandwagon soon after that guidance was issued was PETA, with its 2015 legal claim on behalf of the monkey. PETA argues that the monkey itself owns the copyright because it took the image; all the while, Slater continued to assert his own copyright claim over the image. The matter ultimately ended up in court.

Last month during oral arguments, PETA’s attorney was grilled by judges on several topics, including whether the company has a suitable relationship with ‘Naruto’ the monkey to bring a lawsuit on its behalf, as well as whether a non-human animal has the legal standing to bring a copyright lawsuit. This itself followed a case dismissal by a federal court in California, which found that a monkey isn’t legally able to hold the image’s copyright under the U.S. Copyright Act.

All signs point toward the courts siding against PETA in this lawsuit, and so it perhaps isn’t surprising that PETA is moving toward a settlement of the case. The most recent developments in the legal matter is that PETA and Slater have entered into settlement talks following the aforementioned oral arguments. Per a joint motion filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:

The parties have agreed on a general framework for a settlement subject to the negotiation and resolution of specific terms. The parties are optimistic that they will be able to reach an agreement that will resolve all claims in this matter.

The terms of this potential settlement weren’t detailed.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on PETA is close to settling that ridiculous monkey selfie lawsuit

Posted in Uncategorized