![]() The law provides for damages of $750 to $30,000 for each work infringed, and up to $150,000 if the infringement is deemed to be “willful.” The law requires only that the photographs’ owner - either the photographers or the agencies that hold their rights, register their ownership with the U.S. “There’s somewhat of a presumption that there’s enough creativity in taking these photographs that they’re protectable by copyright,” says Neel Chatterjee, a Silicon Valley attorney who specializes in intellectual property cases. Supreme Court says state laws can’t be copyrighted, but California gives some private entities ownership rights. To the casual viewer, paparazzi photos may not look all that creative, but that’s not how courts have seen it.īusiness Column: A lawsuit aims to stop private firms from claiming copyrights on California lawsĮven the U.S. The truth is that the photographers have the law on their side.Ĭopyright law generally protects writing or images produced through some creative effort. It may seem absurd that celebrities can’t use photographs of themselves, especially those taken in public without their consent, without paying a fee, but them’s the breaks. The trend may reflect the sheer proliferation of potential destinations of any photograph or other creative work, including social media platforms whose users may simply have no knowledge that by sharing images they’ve found on the internet they’re violating someone’s creative rights. ![]() It may be a rare publication that hasn’t encountered a copyright claim over a published image - The Times certainly has. Photographers have become steadily more forceful in fighting copyright violations. Kim Kardashian went so far as to hire her own photographer to take paparazzi-like shots of her so she could slake fans’ thirst for them on social media without running afoul of copyright law. In recent years, defendants have included Justin Bieber (for a shot of him sharing a friendly moment with Los Angeles youth pastor Chad Veach, standing in front of some overfilled dumpsters) Katy Perry (for posting a photograph of her unrecognizably made up as Hillary Clinton for a Halloween event) and the Kardashian sisters. “They also frequently get paid for endorsing products on social media. “Celebrities use their social media accounts to promote themselves as a brand,” Ardalan says. “Once a photograph is posted, People magazine or Us Weekly will be less likely to buy it, because all their fans will have already seen it,” Ardalan says.Ĭelebrities with social media followings typically don’t post photos of themselves simply for the entertainment of their close friends and family members. Many celebrities have millions of fans following their accounts. “It’s a problem when celebrities post photos on social media when they do not have permission,” says Jo Ardalan, a partner at One LLP, the intellectual property law firm that has represented Backgrid in several copyright cases, including the lawsuit against Rinna. So now it just takes me a little longer because I have to go and license the images so they don’t get my □ MAKES NO SENSE. A paparazzi sued me in the past for reposting an image of MYSELF. Yes!! I have to license some of the images first. One reason is that the bigger the celebrity, the more damage he or she may do to the marketability of a copyrighted photograph by simply posting it online. The bigger the names and the wider their social media following, the more vulnerable they may be to copyright infringement claims. But the celebrities often want to control access to their images, especially those that capture them in candid settings, unguarded, unkempt or without makeup. Paparazzi benefit by selling the photographs to news agencies, fan magazines, social media platforms, advertisers - almost anyone willing to pay their price. These cases are a modern manifestation of our celebrity culture.Įntertainment personalities plainly benefit from staying in the public eye by having their images published widely. The celebrity may dicker over the price, but ultimately reach an agreement. Hundreds of these celebrity copyright infringement claims, indeed, may never land in court at all - they start and end with a letter from a photography agency’s lawyers identifying the infringing post and asking for a nominal fee, typically less than it would cost the target to muster a legal defense. Litigation records indicate that most such cases end with an out-of-court settlement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |