RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘sued’

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

 

Ariana Grande sued for $50K after she allegedly shared his photos without permission

17 May

The latest in a line of celebrities caught using pictures without permission, singer Ariana Grande is being sued over images she allegedly posted on Instagram without permission.

Two pictures she posted to promote her album ‘Sweetener’ at the end of last year were liked over three million times, and photographer Robert Barbera is claiming $ 25,000 for each of them in damages because Grande allegedly didn’t have the rights to use them. Below is an Instagram post from Barbera with one of the images Grande allegedly posted without permission.

View this post on Instagram

Sweetener is out!

A post shared by PapCulture (@papculture) on

New York-based Barbera describes himself as a celebrity photographer, supplies paparazzi images to agencies such as Corbis and Splash News and goes under the name ‘Papculture’ on Instagram. He has an extensive collection of street-shot pictures of music, fashion and film stars on his page and has over 37,000 followers of his own.

The pictures Grande allegedly used without permission feature her holding a bag with ‘Sweetener’ written upside down on it, and she posted them on the day her album was released. She has since taken the pictures down but not before many of her 154 million followers had viewed and liked them.

According to the London Evening Standard, other recently sued by photographers for using pictures without permission include Jennifer Lopez, Gigi Hadid, 50 Cent, Jessica Simpson, and Khloe Kardashian.

Photo credits: Image by Melissa Rose, used under CC BY 2.0

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Ariana Grande sued for $50K after she allegedly shared his photos without permission

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Getty Images sued over ‘deceptive’ licensing public domain images

03 Apr

CixxFive Concepts, a digital marketing company based in Dallas, Texas, has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images over its alleged licensing of public domain images. The complaint, which was first reported by TechDirt, accuses Getty of violating RICO and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, among ‘other claims.’

The lawsuit, embedded below, alleges Getty Images has been…

…fraudulently claiming ownership of copyrights in public domain images (which no one owns) and selling fictitious copyright licenses for public domain images (which no one can legally sell), including operating an enterprise of third-party contributors to perpetrate this egregious scheme.

Though CixxFive acknowledges that it is not illegal to sell public domain images, the company alleges that Getty’s ‘conduct goes much further than this,’ claiming it has utilized ‘a number of different deceptive techniques’ in order to ‘mislead’ its customers — and potential future customers — into thinking the company owns the copyrights of all images it sells.

The alleged actions, the lawsuit claims, ‘purport to restrict the use of the public domain images to a limited time, place, and/or purpose, and purport to guarantee exclusivity in the use of public domain images.’ The lawsuit also claims Getty has created ‘a hostile environment for lawful users of public domain images’ by allegedly sending them letters, via its License Compliance Services (LCS) subsidiary, accusing them of copyright infringement.

In listing examples of Getty’s allegedly deceptive actions, the lawsuit states:

One aspect of the deceptive nature of Getty’s and/or Getty US’s licensing scheme is that Getty and/or Getty US claims copyright on all of the content on its website. For example, the bottom of each page of its website states: “All contents © copyright 1999-2019 Getty Images. All rights reserved.”

Also, specific public domain images are overlaid on Getty and/or Getty US’s website with the © symbol followed by an entity or contributor name, indicating that the image is protected by copyright. The same © symbol and information is also provided next to the public domain image.

CixxFive claims it has licensed public domain images from Getty, pointing to two images specifically that are available for free from the Library of Congress and NASA. The lawsuit claims that Getty’s licensing of public domain images has ‘injured CixxFive and the public, and will continue to do so unless brought to a halt by this court.’

It’s doubtful CixxFive will prevail in its lawsuit against Getty, as it’s legally allowed to sell public domain images, as unethical as it may be. Getty has previously won two past lawsuits related to image licensing: one from photographer Carol Highsmith filed in July 2016 and another from press agency and wire service Zuma in August 2016.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Getty Images sued over ‘deceptive’ licensing public domain images

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Wisconsin videographer sued for more than $14K after court rules he botched eight weddings

29 Mar

Wisconsin videographer Scott Sockett, owner of Say I Do Wedding Services, has been sued for more than $ 14,300 by multiple customers who allege he failed to provide the services they paid for. According to an exposé by local news organization TMJ4, Sockett was sued by nine customers and only one case was dismissed, leaving him with orders to pay back thousands of dollars.

TMJ4 spoke with three of Sockett’s former customers, each of whom alleged the videographer either failed to show up to the wedding or only provided some of the services that were paid for.

A screenshot of the latest complaint shown on Scott Sockett’s BBB profile.

In the case of customer Heather Timm, according to the report, Sockett delivered a wedding video that included clips from a different wedding. Another customer, Alexandra Moiser, claims she paid $ 1,400 for services that included videography, uplighting, a photo booth, and a DJ, but only the DJ made an appearance. And in the case of customer Michelle Heck, Sockett allegedly didn’t even come to the wedding.

Sockett’s business is listed by the Better Business Bureau with an ‘F’ rating alongside a dozen complaints, including the above complaint, alleging failure to provide services paid for, failure to provide refunds, and in some cases, failure to show up for the wedding. Below is a PDF document linked on Sockett’s WeddingWire profile under the business name S2 Wedding Solutions that highlights what the company offers.

Sockett spoke with TMJ4 as part of its report, stating that the company is ‘in the process of trying’ to issue refunds. However, existing complaints from past customers claim Sockett had promised them refunds, photos, and more repeatedly without following through on the claims. In addition, Sockett claimed a competitor is behind the bad online reviews and that those alleged customers ‘were never actually customers or clients of ours.’

Sockett also told TMJ4 ‘he has had people who are happy with his services’ and would email the news team a list of said parties. TMJ4 ends its article saying ‘We have not heard back.’

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Wisconsin videographer sued for more than $14K after court rules he botched eight weddings

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Harvard sued over allegedly profiting from 1850s images of American slaves

23 Mar

Harvard University has been sued over its licensing of daguerreotypes believed to be the first images of American slaves. The lawsuit was filed by Tamara Lanier, who says she is the direct descendant of Renty, the man featured alongside his daughter, Delia, in the daguerreotypes. The suit was filed on March 20 in the Middlesex County Superior Court.

The daguerreotypes were commissioned in 1850 by Harvard professor Louis Agassiz, a Swiss-born Harvard professor who sought the images in support of polygenism, a flawed theory that human races have different origins. The commissioned images were taken by J.T. Zealy in Columbia, South Carolina. A total of 11 slaves were photographed, including Renty and Delia, who were stripped naked and imaged from multiple angles.

The images were apparently lost for years before turning up in the Harvard University Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology’s attic in 1976. Since their discovery, according to the lawsuit, Harvard has used the images of Renty for profit, including as the cover image for the book From Site to Sight: Anthropology, Photography and the Power of Imagery, which was published by the Peabody Museum and sold by Harvard.

According to the lawsuit, Lanier had repeatedly reached out to Harvard over the images, but the university failed to address her concerns. Lanier reportedly provided Harvard officials with proof that she is one of Renty’s descendants but was unable to get a response. The lawsuit seeks to have Harvard turn over the images to Lanier’s family and to pay an unspecified amount in damages.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Harvard sued over allegedly profiting from 1850s images of American slaves

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising

14 Jan

Yesterday Lily Robotics, the company behind the waterproof subject-tracking Lily Drone, announced that it was ceasing operation after failing to secure necessary funding, despite $ 34m worth of pre-orders. Now it looks like there’s more to that story: the company has been sued by the San Francisco district attorney’s office over claims of false advertising and unfair business practices.

After a lengthy investigation the attorney’s office alleged that the promotional video, which was used during the initial crowdfunding campaign for the Lily Drone, had not been shot with an actual prototype of the device but a “much more expensive, professional camera drone that requires two people to operate.”

“It does not matter if a company is established or if it is a startup,” District Attorney George Gascón said on Thursday. “Everyone in the market must follow the rules. By protecting consumers, we protect confidence in our system of commerce.”

On its website and in a letter to pre-order customers, Lily Robotics promised it would be issuing refunds to customers over the next 60 days but now the attorney’s office has also obtained an order from a judge requiring the company to return all the money it received from customers and not use it for other purposes. Lily had received approximately 60,000 pre-orders at between $ 499 and $ 899 each.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Lily Robotics sued over claims of false advertising

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Chipotle sued for $2.2b for allegedly using womans photo without permission

10 Jan

Mexican fast-food restaurant chain Chipotle is being sued for $ 2.2 billion by a customer who claims a photo of her has been used in advertising without her consent. According to the lawsuit, photographer Steve Adams took Leah Caldwell’s photo in mid-2006 while she was dining in a Denver area Chipotle restaurant. Caldwell claims she refused to sign Adams’ release form before leaving the restaurant, but that her refusal didn’t stop Chipotle from using the photo in some promotional materials.

Both Adams and Chipotle CEO Steve Ells are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Caldwell states that she became aware of the photo’s usage in Chipotle promotional materials in December 2014 in Orlando, later seeing the photo in multiple California locations in 2015. She also claims the photo was edited to include alcoholic items on the dining table.

Chipotle has declined commenting on the pending litigation, but the lawsuit alleges that Chipotle bought and used the Adams’ photo without confirming whether Caldwell has signed a release. Due to the lengthy span of time that the photo was in circulation, the lawsuit is seeking a massive $ 2,237,633,000, the amount that Chipotle allegedly profited from the photo.

No doubt it’s a reminder to photographers everywhere that getting models to sign a release form is an absolute must. Will Chipotle end up paying over $ 2 billion as a result of the oversight? It seems unlikely. Let us know what you think in the comments.

Source: The Denver Channel

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Chipotle sued for $2.2b for allegedly using womans photo without permission

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press

05 Aug

Getty Images has been sued again, this time by independent press agency Zuma Press over the alleged copyright infringement of 47,048 of its sports images. According to the lawsuit, Getty Images copied the aforementioned photos in April 2016 and made them available on its own website for both selling and licensing purposes without permission. The legal claim further states that Getty ‘altered/removed Zuma’s credit and replaced it with its own credit.’

The lawsuit, which was filed August 1 in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, claims that, ‘Getty has been carelessly and recklessly acquiring content, not doing due diligence and not taking adequate measures to prevent infringement as well as falsifying/removing proper copyright management information… Getty has shown that it cannot and will not reform on its own accord.’

The lawsuit is seeking damages plus profits or, alternatively, statutory damages that can range from $ 2,500 to $ 25,000 per infringed photograph.

This is the second copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Getty Images in recent days. On July 25, photographer Carol M. Highsmith filed a suit against Getty for $ 1 billion over its alleged infringement of her photographers. In response, Getty said the lawsuit was based on ‘misconceptions.’

Via: Ars Technica

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Getty Images sued again, this time by Zuma Press

Posted in Uncategorized

 

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

 

Olympus sued for $273 million over accounting scandal

11 Apr

shared:Olympus.png

Reuters reports six Japanese trust banks have filed a lawsuit against Olympus for ¥27.9bn (around $ 273 million) in damages relating to the company’s false financial statements. According to the report this is the fifth publicly recognized lawsuit stemming from a 2011 accounting scandal. Olympus said it would set aside ¥17bn ($ 166.49m) to settle three of those five suits. Learn more

News: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Olympus sued for $273 million over accounting scandal

Posted in Uncategorized