Misused photo sparks $150K lawsuit

<p>A Quebec man is suing a Canadian magazine for damages after they ran his photo with a story about wife-killers. The photographer is also named in the suit, but might be safe from paying damages if he no longer owns the rights to the image.</p>

<p>What a strong reminder to anyone in publishing to ensure that images do not depict and defame innocent people. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, although i suspect an out-of-court settlement will be reached.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Châtelaine+sued+150K+over+picture/2423106/story.html">http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Châtelaine+sued+150K+over+picture/2423106/story.html</a></p>

<p>Good point. This is why accurate captions are crucial! As an editorial stock photographer I know that the publishers I work with in the US and abroad depend on me to provide them with accurate information about the images they license from me.<br /> <br /> Very poorly handled by both the magazine and whoever authorized the usage it seems, based on the article.</p>

<p>I took a lot of photos in my town when Public Enemies was being filmed (Johnny Depp and the rest of the cast, in fact I was the very first person to have a photo of Johnny Depp arriving on set ANYWAY, sold 6 to a glossy Japanese mag . . .but I digress - what I'm getting at is the 2nd location the movie was filmed in took a photo of JD (not mine) and used it to promote their town. OOPS! Universal did not appreciate this and there was some major $$ exchanged.<br>

What surprised me was the lack of knowledge, just like the Montreal gazette - what we take for granted as knowledge is not always the case with none photographers.<br>

On a side note - Universal plays real hard ass and hard ball with photographers.</p>

<p><em>The photographer is also named in the suit, but might be safe from paying damages if he no longer owns the rights to the image.</em></p>

<p>Why is owning the image relevant? If lack of ownership gets someone off the hook, then I could copy an image that someone else owns and use it to portray someone in the image in a false light and not be liable to that person because I did not own the image. Moreover, the person whose image was stolen could be on the hook merely because they owned it. I gather Canada is like most western countries where liability for false light or defamation type situations is on the person that wrongly displayed the image, not on the owner merely because they are an owner. On what grounds is the photographer liable if they just shot the image, didn't participate in displaying the image in the way described and just happened to own it? How does one, even in Canada, become liable for an image being used improperly merely because they own an image?</p>

<p>In the US so long as the photographer described the photo's release status and provided a copy of the release to the magazine you should not be party to any judgement. The more wrong info or advise you give the more likely you could be party to the settlement.<br>

You don't know how the publisher/user of your image will use it. If you tell them the use is ok and they rely on your advise you are in some dudo. When you get questions, here is the photo, here is the release. If you go farther watch out.</p>

<p>The article does not say, so we don't know all of it. A standard model release gives very broad rights to the photographer (and hence to the publisher). If the guy signed such a standard release, and is now suing because he didn't understand what he was signing (ie, he thought it was only for the interview he agreed to), and if it doesn't get thrown out of court, and if he then wins the suit, the implications for photography and publishing could be pretty scary.</p>

<p>Louise</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>If </strong>the guy ..., and <strong>if </strong>it ..., and <strong>if </strong>he..., and <strong>if</strong> it doesn't..., and <strong>if</strong> he then wins<br /> the implications for photography and publishing could be pretty scary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A long string of ifs, and a court judgement that is subject to appeal and in any event has any relevance only in Quebec.<br /> <br /> If a huge meteorite strikes the earth then the implications for photography and publishing will also be pretty scary - and not just in a minor part of Canada. But I'm not losing sleep over either, just yet.</p>