Headline: "Local photographer sues over photo of shooting victim"

<p>http://www.kgun9.com/global/story.asp?s=14010688</p>

<p>and the fallout... http://www.kgun9.com/global/story.asp?s=14014451</p>

<p>I fear this is only possible in the US of A. One would almost start to wonder what's more sad, the tragedy that caused all of this to happen or what came of it.</p>

<p>I'm curious, Ton, what you really think. Should photographers defent their copyrights when a photograph they've made turns out to be something that a lot of big media companies want to use during their commercial broadcasts? I think the photographer's doing exactly the right thing. He's defending his copyright (and the larger concept of artists' rights to the reproduction of their work) while also making it clear he's not going to be putting the proceeds in his pocket. And more importantly, the family of the victim <em>approves of his position and plans</em>.<br /><br />The underlying tragedy is just that: a tragedy. The only thing tragic about the aftermath (with respect to the media companies using the photograph) is the non-surprising level of ignorance that so many people seem to have about intellectual property rights. And, of course, the mental disconnect that has them conveniently forgetting that the large businesses broadcasting the image without permission are selling advertising time as they do so.<br /><br />Is this only possible in the US of A? What would happen in the Netherlands? </p>

<p>There certainly appears to be some collaboration here, between the photographer and the family. The family had to have supplied the picture in order for it to be published, then agreed to the photographer's terms when he painted a picture of nameless, faceless corporations being forced to supply money which would be donated to charity. </p>

<p>Incredible that the photographer would totally dismiss the bad PR in favor of the possibility of a quick money-grab.</p>

<p>If the photographer is suing the New York Times, then I'm all for him!</p>

<p>Alert the media - Lindberg Baby Kidnapped! </p>

<p>Seriously - this probably happens all the time - because in today's paper alone - I saw 3 photos that I know that the paper photog's didn't shoot - they were definitely school or pro photographer shots. All of them had the caption - used w/permission. </p>

<p>If the big boys showed the image and didn't bother to get approval from the photographer - then I'm all in favor of him getting whatever pound of damages out of them that he can. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Clear case of the photographer doing more harm to his business than good. What is he thinking? Simply because these news organizations are big does not meant that he were to get "big" money if his case prevails in court (which I doubt). But I guess one can argue that bad PR is better than no PR.</p>

<p>There's information missing here:<br>

Did the photographer attempt to contact any of the news agencies directly about the copyright violation before hiring the lawyer?<br>

Why didn't the news agencies, which should be aware of the potential for copyright violation, attempt to contact the photographer before using the photo?</p>

<p>Normally, I would support the photographer; but this is a situation where his attempt to defend his rights (to put it in the best light) has overshadowed the original tragedy, and that's just wrong. The whole thing reminds me of Shakespeare's Shylock looking for his pound of flesh. The charity did exactly the right thing in refusing to accept proceeds from the lawsuit as a donation.</p>

<p>The photographer should let it go, At the end, the only one who's going to win here is the lawyer - and he knows it.</p>

<p>to John Henneberger,</p>

<p> Correct me if I am wrong. As a rule, the courts will follow the established law related to Intellectual Property rights. The ignorance of the public-at-large will not be an issue that comes into play. Anyone here taking photos could face the same problem that this photographer is facing. And he has chosen to defend his rights under the law of the land. The emmediacy of the event coupled with the medias need for images does not negate his I.P. rights.</p>

<p>So I support him. The newspaper story has taken the tragedy of one individual violating the constitutional rights of other people, and compounding it by creating a story that the larger media has the need to infringe on his legal rights, for their ability to deliver the news in a timely manner. Then you have the charity saying they do not want one thing to do with the money. If the charity is there to help people, I do not see them supporting his need to defend his rights. The charity's point of view is also wrong. For they are indirectly saying the money is tainted, probably due to the public's reaction to his actions. But most likely due to them thinking politcally to prevent damage to their public face, and thus not supporting a local businessman who is defending the theft of his creative rights.</p>

<p>Another way to look at it is: the victims of the shooter had no legal rights to prevent the shooter from violating their rights; thus, the photographer had no legal right to prevent the media from violating his rights. The media reports both stories and profits from both stories. The victims are how the media describe them.<br>

</p>

 

<p>On the one hand, media outlets should NOT use , obviously, professional photos without checking with the photographer. They know the laws as well as anyone. They will of course counter that they story is happening NOW, and they can't wait days for some person to give them the OK.How long would it take Olin Mills to get back to you ?</p>

<p>The other stance is , "What damages ? " . Just who is going to look at this tragic story, see that shot, and say , " Gosh Marge. That's just a wonderful picture. I wish I knew who took it, because I want to hire them. " ?</p>

<p>All this is really about is going after the media for NOT getting his permission.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm curious, Ton, what you really think.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>easy Matt. Whatever the outcome it's likely going to backfire. It's not going to do his reputation any good and I think apart from any intellectual property rights that's also something that needs to be considered from a business point of view.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is this only possible in the US of A? What would happen in the Netherlands?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>again easy, you can't compare the lawsuit culture in your country with that in ours. What's furthermore different is that we don't need to register our copyright.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote> you can't compare the lawsuit culture in your country with that in ours</blockquote>

<p>Why not? They're either different or the same in some respect. How are they different? For

instance, here's one comparison from your very next sentence:</p>

 

<blockquote>What's furthermore different is that we don't need to register our copyright.</blockquote>

<p><i>Incidentally, you don't need to register here either in order to secure copyright.</i></p>

 

<p>If you have copyright law in the Netherlands, which of course you do, people must have some

remedy when their rights are violated, no? Is it a process other than the courts? This organization <a

href="http://www.anti-piracy.nl/english/english.asp">BREIN</a> doesn't seem much different than

organizations like the RIAA in the US.</p>

 

<p>The fact that it might backfire reflects the general public's ignorance of copyright and media, not the

ethical position of the photographer. </p>

<p>Ton: not being defensive or hostile, really. I meant what I asked: what would happen in your country if a broadcaster used an image without permission?</p>

<p>Despite the fact that we don't always agree I never mistook you for any of those Matt ;-)<br /> First of all if a broadcaster would like to use a image they would ask permission. That's how it's normally done. I remember one case some years ago where a satirical programm used a photo without permission although they had the good grace to apologise immediately and settle voluntarily. It was an oversight.<br /> In some cases they've include a disclaimer in the endtitles that despite all trouble they couldn't trace a name to a possible copyrighted image and offer to pay for it if asked.</p>

<p>If a case like the one mentioned here would occur I'm pretty sure most photographers over here would let it be. I certainly would. All that apart from the fact that there is something as fair use although given the current state of affairs that will be for the judge to decide.</p>

<p>As for lawsuits I think it's fair to say that we don't go to court as easily (and that's putting it mildly).</p>

<p>But I meant what I said before. Claiming your rights is one thing but thinking how this might affect your business in the end is quite another.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that it might backfire reflects the general public's ignorance of copyright and media, not the ethical position of the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Be that as it may but if it kills of your reputation and/or your business that won't get you anywhere will it?</p>

<p>one other thing ton didn't mention is that you really can't compare the gun culture in the USA with the netherlands'.<br>

i'd have sympathy for the news media's position, if this had anything to do with news. oh, it's part of the story, to be sure, but in a media landscape that's loud, crude and exploitative, the story is an infotainment, not news. the narrative and analytic functions of reporting have mutated into an emotionally manipulative cacophony that at its heart serves no purpose but to generate advertising dollars.<br>

i support the photographer's attempt to gouge the outlets that broadcast this photo not because there's any intrinsic value to the work itself -- his possession of it is entirely serendipitous; it was not his enterprise or initiative or pre-congnitive abilities that brought him to obtain it. he simply happened to take the client's money, and made an ordinary and unexceptional shot. i support him only as far as his demands put the craven corporate interests that make a mockery of the new on the spot.<br>

there really is something uniquely american about this situation. i sincerely believe, and agree with ton, that the peculiar confluence of events at issue here are quite unlikely to have happened anywhere else.</p>

 

<p>Sue the family for showing a photo that they did not have the rights to.</p>

Some photographers would let this slide because it was a tragedy but this Photographer may set a precedence for news organizations to

obtain permission to use a photo they did not take themselves. They are professionals, this was sloppy journalism. I would

imagine if someone were to start publishing their photos and news stories they would go after that person or organization.

They should have contacted the photographer and offered payment to use or get another photo they could use.

 

The news editor is a paid professional. They studied journalism in college, they should understand concepts of copyright

and plagiarism. They know the rules and the law.

 

It was sloppy journalism that set them up for this. News organizations have been doing this stuff for years and most

photographers let them.This photographer said no.

<p>I would like to add something related to his pursuit of damages. In the U.S. you have to register the image in order to seek damages. As I understand it, you can register at any time and the coverage goes backwards to the day you took the image, which is the date the copyright initiates. And he did register the image, so he can now seek damages.</p>

<p>I do not care about the qualities of the image or the skills related to the image's creation. All that matters is he can prove he took the photo and it is now registered.</p>

<p>It would be nice if the same media outlet writing the stories would write a later one telling how the issue is concluded. Though the lawyer is quoted that some settlements have been reached. That is vindication for the photographer. I doubt that the general public will remember any of these details in a few weeks, so it is likely the phtographer and his business will not suffer at all. He might even get business in support of him for his actions to protect his work. His reputation as a good photographer is up to the buying public.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sue the family for showing a photo that they did not have the rights to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're being sarcastic, it means that you really don't care when a large commercial media company earns their money using a photographer's work without permission. And if you're OK with that, it's not clear what claim you would ever have over the reproduction by others of your <em>own</em> photographs. Do you care? Maybe not.<br /><br />If you're not being sarcastic, it means you really need to brush up on this topic.</p>

<p>The bothersome part here is the anti-lawsuit sentiment, as if anybody who's suing anybody for anything is doing something wrong. A huge number of the laws in this country carry no criminal penalty and/or won't be enforced by government law enforcement agencies - they're enforced by the person who's been wronged, by suing the person who did the bad act. The lawsuit is not a shameless grab at money, it's a law enforcement action. Contrary to popular opinion it's statistically very unusual for a suit to result in an unjustly large award, because there are a huge number of safeguards in place to prevent that, and most are resolved by negotiated settlements.</p>

<p>If photographers don't sue, or threaten to sue, corporations that use their copyrighted photos without permission, the result will be that corporations will use photographers' copyrighted photos without permission whenever they want to. Photography is an intellectual property field, same as publishing, software developing and fashion design.</p>

<p>More from KGUN : http://www.kgun9.com/global/story.asp?s=14017124</p>

<p>I would have gone with a different, more educational, spin if pursuing such an endeavor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...Wolf has hired New York attorney Ed C. Greenberg to squeeze money out of news media outlets...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah. No bias there.</p>

<p>I think he'll lose, it seems several areas are in contention, when he actually registered the copyrighting of the image, the fact that the image was not just reproduced and the fact that "fair use" could easily be claimed by the news outlets. Further to that the photographer who took the image of the person holding the contested photograph can legitimately claim copyright of <strong>his</strong> work.</p>

<p>Even a first year law student can look up derivative works claims and make a very fair case, in this instance, of a derivative and newsworthy image not being a copyright infringment.</p>

<p>That does not mean I don't respect photographers rights, I do, I also think when they are bullied by big news agencies it is in all photographers interests to encourage legal action. In this instance I do not believe he will win, neither, according to the law as I understand the interpretation of derivative works, should he.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Thanks for posting the third story. I agree with you. the lawyer was running circular answers without laying out the legal issues. Not to mention the idiot interviewer asking about details that would have violated the client confidentiallity agreement. Both issues should have been addressed then the interview terminated. The media is making the photographer the perpetrator when he is actually the victim. I hope he does well, but after the lawyer gets his public act together.</p>

<p>CHEERS...</p>