digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

5 Nightmare Photography Court Cases

blogs.photopreneur.com — Here are five photography court cases that should scare the bejesus out of photographers

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MikeonTV, on 11/21/2007, -4/+4"I must break you"
  • Burento, on 11/21/2007, -7/+26I actually found each of the stories interesting, especially how the farmer sold the image but won based on not signing a model waiver.. Smart.
    • floodyberry, on 11/21/2007, -0/+16I realize this was just a fluffer comment for your friend's spam, but a) The photographer (Burwell), not the farmer (Marsinko), distributed the photo, and b) There is no mention of the farmer (Marsinko) winning the case.
    • AriaStar, on 11/21/2007, -0/+8The card was pretty damned lame.

      (Also, floodberry has the facts right.)
    • mzwaterski, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7These don't sound like nightmare cases so much as run-of-the-mill civil cases that involve photography issues. The same type of article could be written about contract law, wills and estates, or anything else... I don't really see any ground-breaking issues that are being considered in these cases. Am I wrong?
      • HonoredMule, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2No, your not.

        However, these particular cases do show how copyright law can actually still protect people on rare occasions--why we might not want to simply abolish copyright completely.
  • conceptdev, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9Did everyone forget the term "Model Released" or are some of these guys drinking the developer?
    • bieber, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1As a general rule, a model release is only necessary when you're intending to use the image for something like advertising. If you're selling it as artwork (which is what I'd call that greeting card, and the courts clearly said the passerby photos were) you don't need any kind of permission from the person, so long as they weren't photographed anywhere they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • DigiDave, on 11/21/2007, -1/+15I found the Flickr one the most interesting. I've gone searching for creative commons photos on flickr too when looking for inspiration or free photos. Makes you think twice.
  • beelz, on 11/21/2007, -1/+14http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

    Photographer’s Rights
  • dannydowney, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1real interesting, make one think twice indeed
  • down4twenty, on 11/21/2007, -6/+3Ha! the guys name was Emo Nussenweig
    • dinostabOMG, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Yeah, he could afford to stop being so emo about the use of his image.
  • KewlerKid3, on 11/21/2007, -3/+0They don't let you take pictures inside the sistine chapel in the Vatican...but trust me everyone does it.

    Photographers should know their rights...they have'm just like we all do.
    • gaqua, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Yes they do. They just tell you that you can't use the flash.

      • patangay, on 11/23/2007, -0/+0Actually, they let you take pictures in the rest of the Vatican, but they say no photography (flash or otherwise) in the Sistine Chapel. They have ushers go around and stop people as well.
  • jejeje666, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3> And he was sued by Emo Nussenzweig,

    Yeah, I remember that guy. Sobbing and crying all the time about the stupid picture. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.
  • tauntz, on 11/21/2007, -4/+3Uh.. I'm lucky that I don't live in a country where you have to get permission from the people that you photographed. When you are in a public place then you can make photos/make movies as much as you want and nobody has any right to sue you for being in that picture. You can sell these photos or do whatever with them - they are yours - all rights are granted to the person who actually takes the photo. It does not matter whats in the photo.. it could be a naked celeb, a damn big copyrigthed thingie or whatever. Who takes the picture has the full ownership of it and can do whatever he likes with that.

    I love simple rules.
    • pak314, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2What if someone took your photo and put you in an advertisement without your permission or payment to you?
  • tubular, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4What a lame ***** blog post. I learned nothing. Thanks.
  • AriaStar, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7Simple put, if it's not your ***** and you didn't get a model release for any people in the images, don't sell it or use it in any way to make money.
    • lucifuge, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1That's not how it works. You just can use it for advertising. You can use it for self-promotion and to be sold as art or editorial.
    • bieber, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1That's very much not the message. Making a photograph in public that has people in it, and then doing something like hanging it in a gallery or selling prints, is clearly legal as the article mentioned. It's only things like advertising that you need a model release for.
  • Error601, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5Remember, this is digg - Copyright is a stupid invention by evil corporations and you should be able to copy anything you want.
    • pjmalone, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3like your name ... you are in error... international copyright was established by the Berne Convention in 1887, initiated by Victor Hugo (a literary artist incidentally) ... nothing to do with corporations... copyright as a concept is much older...
    • ZekeSulastin, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1You sir are the one in error. You can't recognize basic sarcasm and satire even though it slapped you upside the head.
    • evonbart, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0Yeah, copyright is only irrelevant until you are the individual that had the brains to develop the intellectual property in the first place. When it's your bread and butter, I can see someone being a bit sensitive about their hard work getting ripped off and sold out from under them by an individual or a large corporation. But, being that you probably never will have that kind of talent to need that protection, of course you wouldn't care if it helps others. I'm kinda amazed you blamed 'evil corporations' and not George Bush.
  • ian9outof10, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1Excellent article, love it.
  • dime, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3This "article" could have been summed up simply "if you don't have express permission to use the photo, don't".

    Efficiency, bloggers. Efficiency!
    • dinostabOMG, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Yeah, relevant examples are such a waste of time.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1This doesn't really scare me at all. I'm more worried about the works of "photographers" like Yoji Ishikawa than any copyright issues. I never claim other people's work as my own, and I don't think anyone will be stealing my work for a commercial anytime soon :(
  • oshu, on 11/21/2007, -1/+11What a ridiculously sensationalist headline. There really isn't anything new here. As others have stated, get a release from your models. Period. Here's another thing, always compensate the model in someway. In many jurisdictions, an uncompensated release is worthless. Paying a model as little as $1 can make all the difference in the release being upheld in court.
  • cotaskmemalloc, on 11/21/2007, -0/+13I don't think these really qualify as "nightmare" court cases. They were all situations in which someone clearly did something wrong. The title of this article makes it sounds like everyone is out to get the photographers, but the article is pretty clear on who is being "gone after", and its those who infringe on others copyrights. No big deal. Dugg down as inaccurate.
  • inajeep, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Nightmare? No, interesting to photographers yes.
  • SuperCheese, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4This is not something that should scare photographers at all. This is something that should worry people who don't understand the rules involved in making money off of works involving other people's images.
    Enough with the sensationalist headline BS.
    • doobes, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Agreed. The headline is completely misleading.
  • sunchild, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4How is the Philip-Lorca diCorcia case a "nightmare" for photographers? It pretty much established that selling your photos of people in public spaces for up to $30,000 each, even without a model release, is permissible as long as there is some artistic merit.

    This article really sounds like it was written by a 13 year old. "Court case"? How about "lawsuit"? How about some discussion of the legal and factual merits of the cases?
  • endersadvocate, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1If you want to hear a real nightmare lawsuit.

    Some photographer friend of my dad was bankrupted by a suit a couple of years back.
    He didn't get an album to a couple by christmas (a few days late) and they sued for >1 million.
    They won....
  • Kallius, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Fantastic. Virgin Mobile uses a private citizen's photo for advertising without that person's permission and without compensating them. Yet their sister company is a member of the RIAA who advocate lawsuits against private citizens infringing on copyright. Just goes to show the hypocrisy in the corporate world.
  • fuschino, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1No nightmares for photographers here. Buried.
  • chess007, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1"Private figures must give permission to be photographed for commercial purposes generally.

    There are two areas that create controversy. First, how do you define private versus public figure. There are certainly individuals who are on the cusp. Generally, context applies. You can take a picture of Steve Wozniak (an Apple Computer inventor) at a computer trade show without permission. Photographing him sunbathing naked on a yacht, is probably not acceptable (or advisable)." - Jason Tweed

    LOL
  • bhaveshshah, on 03/02/2008, -0/+0http://www.buyfilmcameras.co.uk/
  • amanders, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0i'm a photographer and most certainly worry about someone stealing my images all of the time. i have had several images stolen from the web and made into Christmas Cards, Greeting Cards, and used for journal layouts. Some of the sites that feature them are in foreign languages. What are you to do when they are in other languages and you can't decipher what they are saying about them or using them for? It gets really confusing and you just want to scream.

    You also have to be aware about when someone emails you saying they want permission to print 300 post cards *or prints, using one of your images. How do you know that they will only print 300? Sure, you're getting paid for the 300 but they may be galloping around the printers with 300+.
    Even when you are giving permission, and you are getting waivers, etc., you still don't really know what's going on with your image. I once gave permission for a school in Canada * i live in the united states* and they were using it for postcards to send out to perspective students. I asked for a postcard in the mail but never received one. A few weeks later I got the check in the mail and when I took i to the bank to have it cashed, the teller didn't convert the funds. I had it automatically deposited into my account, i just put the receipt in my pocket and left.

    After I got home i went online to spend the money on some items on the internet. I get a phone call from the bank saying i owe money. To make a long story short, I ended up having to PAY back the bank 7 years later to get my name off of a bank blocking list that prevented me from getting a bank account anywhere in the United States. I refused to pay for all of those years and needed a bank account so I finally agreed to pay it.

    Photography is a messy business and people will try their hardest to take it , exploit it, and call it their own. Be prepared. It is a nightmare when you have hardly any money to cover the costs.
  • allancass, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0Find and delete similar and duplicate images and pictures
    http://www.mindgems.com/products/VS-Duplicate-Imag ...
    The fastest and the most precise application that I found.
  • crossers, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0good! I love this!
    http://www.ocflex.com/
    http://www.trgovinca.org
    http://www.chasr.org/
  • caqlar, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0thanks you

    sohbet
    Saç Ekimi

    http://www.hairlife.com.tr
    http://www.akenna.net
    http://www.sohbetozel.org
    http://www.webmasterdestek.com
    http://www.sohbet.tw
    http://www.alem.gen.tr
    http://www.trlist100.com
    http://www.neoo.org
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.