Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The image belongs to the photographer, not the subject. Simples.

More interesting is that she's British but, presumably because her agent has a US office, she can be sued there. The pap would get far less out of IPEC so they're not bothering.

My guess- it will settle for much less that the statutory maximum.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

The image belongs to the photographer, not the subject. Simples.

More interesting is that she's British but, presumably because her agent has a US office, she can be sued there. The pap would get far less out of IPEC so they're not bothering.

My guess- it will settle for much less that the statutory maximum.

I agree. She may decide that the associated publicity is more valuable than potential damages for infringement but the amount being claimed does seem unconscionable.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Richard Tadman said:

the amount being claimed does seem unconscionable.

It's the maximum per-image amount for statutory damages for infringement, as I said. Nothing to do with conscience, for a US lawyer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

A different story but nonetheless interesting. Usinng somebody's photo on a billboard without permission.

 

Sacha Baron Cohen sues over cannabis billboard featuring Borat character

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57817404

 

 

this one usage is wrong in so many ways, they use someone's picture, plus they also used character which i'm sure would be protected-  have a feeling even using a model looking like Borat would have landed them in trouble. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

A different story but nonetheless interesting. Using somebody's photo on a billboard without permission.

 

Sacha Baron Cohen sues over cannabis billboard featuring Borat character

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57817404

 

Let's hope it's not a personal use of D3TM17:

Britisch comedian Borat gestures at the after-show-party of the German Comedy Prize 2006 in Cologne, Germany, Tuesday, - Stock Image

Because imho it is this image that has been used on the billboard.

It's by the respectable dpa picture alliance archive btw.

 

wim

Edited by wiskerke
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2021 at 11:22, Richard Tadman said:

This is a somewhat bizarre twist on the issue of copyright which is frequently debated on this forum.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57775670

Of, course it's instigated in the USA so perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise.

 

One wonders what she'd do (or her record company would do) if a photo agency used one of her tracks without permission as backing music for an Insta post.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.