Fashion photographer David LaChapelle is launching a lawsuit against Rihanna over the controversial music video for her song S&M. LaChapelle alleges that “the music video is directly derived from and substantially similar to the LaChapelle works” and that it copied the “composition, total concept, feel, tone, mood, theme, colors, props, settings, decors, wardrobe and lighting” of eight of his photographs.
Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier this year photographer Daniel Morel was shocked when a photograph he captured during the devastating earthquake in Haiti and posted to TwitPic was distributed by Agency France Presse (AFP) and published on the front page of newspapers around the world — all without his permission.

To add insult to injury, he was then sued by AFP when he sent cease and desist letters in response to the copyright infringement. The dispute has turned into a legal battle over whether images uploaded to TwitPic and shared on Twitter can be freely republished by third parties. In what might be an indication of things to come, a federal court has denied AFP’s pre-trial request to have the case thrown out.
Read the rest of this entry »

A Texas-based photographer named David Langford received quite a surprise earlier this year when his friend tipped him off about a photo of his being used on vehicle registration inspection stickers in Texas. Turns out an estimated 4.5+ million stickers used a silhouette created from a photo of his from 1984 titled “Days End 2″. Langford is now suing the state to stop further use of his photo on the stickers — designed by prison inmates as part of a contract between the Department of Criminal Justice and the Department of Public Safety — and to collect damages and attorney fees.

Suit centers on silhouette cowboy (via The Online Photographer)

American NASA astronaut Bruce McCandless II is suing British singer Dido over the photo used for the album cover of “Safe Trip Home”. The photo shows McCandless “free-flying” hundreds of feet from the Orbiter using a Manned Manuevering Unit (MMU). McCandless was the first person to do an untethered spacewalk.

Since McCandless does not own the rights to the image (it’s in the public domain), the lawsuit is over his “persona” being used. Having licensed his persona for advertising campaigns, his claim is that the unauthorized use of his image hurts his endorsement value for future clients.

The fact that the photo itself isn’t under copyright and the fact that McCandless appears only as a tiny spacesuit in the image make this a pretty interesting case. What’s your opinion?

(via The Guardian)

The model on the cover of indie band Vampire Weekend’s album “Contra” is suing the band, its record label, and the photographer for more than $2 million. Ann Kirsten Kennis discovered that her image was on the cover of the top-selling album when her daughter purchased it and brought it home to show her.

Kennis claims the model release for the image was forged and the image was used without her consent for commercial use.

Though Kennis worked as a model in New York during the 80s and 90s, she says that the photo, which was taken in 1983, was not taken as a part of her modeling career. Kennis believes that the photo, a Polaroid, was possibly taken by her mother. Kennis’ attorney Alan Neigher, told Entertainment Weekly:

Her mother was a chronic Polaroid snapshot taker, and used to sell whole archives of photographs to these shops, five bucks a hundred or whatever. Her mother may have given away to a charity bazaar a whole ream of photographs. We just really don’t know…She has no idea how that photograph got into the photographer’s hands.

Neigher later said that the family has no solid idea about who took the photo, but he says the family maintains that the signature on the model release was forged.

The credited photographer, Tod Brody, says Kennis’ accusations are false, and that he took the photograph, had it in his posession for 26 years, and only recently gave it to Vampire Weekend for use on the album cover. Brody told PDN:

Ms. Kennis, through her lawyers, has slandered and defamed [him] by claiming that her family took the photo. We will easily prove in court that I took the photo,” he said.

The defendants have not filed an official response to Kennis’ claim, nor has a court date been set.

(via Entertainment Weekly)

Five years after acquiring the photo sharing service Flickr, Yahoo has finally obtained ownership of the domain name Flicker.com.

One of the common characteristics of Web 2.0 companies is the use of misspelled words in their name, since the correctly spelled words are typically too pricey for a bootstrapped web startup to purchase early on.

Flickr was one such company, settling for the now ubiquitous name after being unable to purchase Flicker.com.

As you might expect, the enormous popularity of Flickr has led to an absurd amount of traffic for Flicker.com, as people often type in the domain name either as a typo or being ignorant of the “correct” spelling”.
Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier this month we reported on 48 Hour Magazine, a new project that aims to put together each magazine in only 48 hours from start to finish. The team of editors include Heather Champ and Derek Powazek, the founding editors of JPG Magazine.

Shortly after completing “Issue Zero”, they’ve received a cease and desist letter from the lawyers at CBS for trademark violation. The company owns trademarks for their news magazine television series “48 Hours”, and the related “48 Hours Mystery”.

According to the New York Times, 48 Hour Magazine never looked into the legality of the name, nor did they form a corporation. The proceeds of the $10 magazine (which they’ve sold over 1,000 copies of) will be split according to a transparent (albeit semi-complicated) formula.

The magazine has hired a lawyer to represent them, but does not plan to put up a fight, opting to work with CBS to come to an agreement. Since their website 48hourmag.com might soon go offline, they’ve set up a page at has48hrmagbeenshutdown.com to keep readers informed.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has teamed up with amateur photographer Antonio Musumeci in a lawsuit that challenges a federal ban on photography. Musumeci, a software programmer, filmed the arrest of a protester outside of the Manhattan Federal Court last year, and then was himself arrested.

Musumeci was standing in a public plaza when he was arrested, but he says a Federal Protective Service inspector told him that it was illegal to take photos. The inspector then made Musumeci sit on a sidewalk for 20 minutes while his camera and memory card were confiscated. He was then ticketed for “violating the regulation barring photography.” Though his ticket was later dismissed in court, his memory card has not been recovered.

The man returned to take footage at another protest, during which he deliberately stood on the public sidewalk, but says he was threatened with arrest once again.

Now the NYCLU has picked up Musumeci’s case to challenge the ban on photography near federal property by suing the Federal Protective Services, FPS Inspector Clifford Barnes, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Executive director of the NYCLU wrote in a statement:

“In our society, people have a clear right to use cameras in public places without being hassled and arrested by federal agents or police… We understand the need for heightened security around federal buildings, but the government cannot arrest people for taking pictures in a public plaza.”

New York law enforcement has a track record of misdealings with photographers after a 2009 arrest of an off-duty metro employee.

But if the UK Parliament’s recent reversal of the controversial Section 44 is any indication, the NYCLU’s lawsuit may stand a chance in US court.

It happens all the time, but does that make it acceptable? According to a court decision this week, what Current TV’s vice president Michael Streefland calls “standard practice in digital media” is legal after all.

Current TV and photographer Ken Light have been entwined in a legal debate over an image which belongs to Light but was used without his permission on the media company’s website.

Light brought his case against Current TV to small claims court, charging the company with unfair competition. The photographer won initially, which included $500 for compensation and $88 for court fees.  Soon after, Current TV appealed the decision, which was subsequently reversed by a San Francisco Superior Court judge.

According to Light, the court’s change of heart stemmed from the technical details. Current TV’s chief technologist testified that the site used in-line linking to the image on the New Yorker’s site, and did not technically copy the photo.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the image qualified as fair use, and the root issue was over the photo’s copyright, which is a federal court case. Light told PDNPulse that he is at the end of the line in state court and doesn’t know whether he will  proceed with a copyright suit.

Although the case may not make it out of the state, the suit has garnered national attention,  including a piece in the New York Times. Times writer Scott James wrote in favor of Light, calling the case a “David vs. Goliath” situation, and suggesting:

“Imagine if Mr. Light’s photograph had been in a frame — few would say it was O.K. to borrow it without permission, deny the artist credit and exhibit it and collect sponsor fees.”

In spite of the loss, Light said he is pleased with the widespread publicity and ensuing discussions the case has sparked. He says he hopes the case sets a precedent for other photographers and journalists to fight for due compensation.

“Yes, I lost, but I think waving the flag is important,” Light said. “We have to keep [pushing] this until we get some protection.”

Athanasios Varzanakos, a Greek man, is suing Swedish dairy company Lindahls for using his image on containers of Turkish-style yogurt. The $6.9m lawsuit alleges (in 40 pages, no less) that the image is misleading because the man has no connections whatsoever with Turkey.

According to BBC News, chief executive Anders Lindahl claims the photo was legally licensed from a stock library:

We bought it from a photo agency so we assumed that everything was in order

PDNPulse also sheds a little more light on the cultural aspect of this case:

The (hilarious) photograph doesn’t just have legal implications. The use of a Greek man’s likeness to promote a Turkish-style yoghurt is a cultural faux pas given the centuries-old conflict between the Greeks and Turks, which began when the Greeks gained their independence from the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the lawsuit, the photograph is currently still featured prominently on the Lindahls website. I can imagine why — this is publicity you can’t really pay for.

What do you think of this story? Should Varzanakos be awarded money for being portrayed as a Turkish man?