York Photographer Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23514738 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The ruling is very clear that it is only for passing-off and that it does not establish image rights in the UK. They will probably get very much less than $5m. but it was very careless of Topshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Watkins Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 And it's only because her reputation may have been damaged* that the judge ruled in her favour. In other words, you can use an image however you like, as long as you don't damage someone's reputation (or cause them financial loss, I think). *I think even my reputation would be damaged if my likeness appeared on a TopShop T-shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Nobody wants my image, that's why it is on here. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 It would appear that the photographer was in the clear anyway - obviously they had no 'model release' so her lawyers went after the publisher not the photographer - reinforcing the concept that it is the publisher (Top Shop) who is responsible for the final usage of an image not the photographer/copyright owner...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizair Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I retired from a commercial world where litigation was a normal tool of business. Litigators always look to where the money is. And I've got to say that it is not with us small fry. In our world litigators, if they have a sound case, will always target where the money is, and that is the publishers, not the lowly photographer. It does not mean that photographers will not be part of any action but IMO they will not be the main target. The reason is that even if you have an action found against you as a freelance photographer, the chance of a litigator getting any money is slim. An action against any party is only as good as the ability of that party to pay. Put simply, litigators are unlikely to pursue such a judgement. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 ...and in the UK, fortunately, they are so unlikely to get one, they won't bother trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizair Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 ^^ And here as well. AU law is closely aligned with the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.