Royalties for the most famous Leica photo of all time?

[simon_ball1]

There is a report in today's London Times about Alberto Korda'a

daughter seeking the rights and subsequent royalties to arguably the

most famous photograph of all time.

 

Taken by Korda on 5 March 1960, the photo of Che Guevara turned him

into an icon of the 21st century.

 

The lawsuit Korda's daughter Diana Diaz Lopez has brought is being

heard in the French Courts and stems from the alleged mis-use of the

photo in a poster in a poster campaign to dissuade tourists from

visiting Cuba.

 

If she wins she will become a dollar millionaire over night and will

be able to challenge the use of the photograph all over the world.

 

What are your thoughts on this? and what are the implications?

 

The report link is here:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1031790,00.html

[michael_kastner]

<i>What are your thoughts on this? and what are the implications?

</i>

<br>Please don't hold it against me, but I just can't resist saying "I don't give a sh*t".

[watts]

<i>If she wins she will become a dollar millionaire over night</i>

<br><br>I rather doubt that. Winning a court ruling is only half the

battle. Obtaining the actual damages or compensation is often

more difficult/impossible (offending party has gone bust, no

longer meaningfully exists, or simply won't pay up, etc.).<br><br>

I'm not sure that there are any implications here. An image still

under copyright is either improperly or illegally used and the

estate of the original copyright holder is seeking redress. What's

the problem?

[cd thacker]

I went to read the article, but it seems they want my money - in exchange for which I not only get access to the article, but also the fulfillment of their promise to fill my inbox with spam. No thanks.<p>

 

At first blush it seems clear that Korda - or his daughter in this case, since he is dead - should control the use of his own work. And that if others are using that work to make money (or pursue political aims), he (or his estate) certainly should benefit by it. <p>

 

But is the defendent claiming that copyright has to be asserted promptly or else the work becomes public domain? My amateur assumption is that if you allow your work to be used freely over several decades without asserting your copyright, the copyright is lost. I suppose the only question is when.

[simon_ball1]

I guess my interest here is the same as CD's, i.e. when does the copyright get lost? and, since Korda is dead, for how long can those rights be passed down? There are Google adverts down the right hand side of my screen telling me where I can buy Che t-shirts! This image is so well used now!

 

Apologies if you cannot read the article. The web site is free to join though, and I'm not aware of any unwanted SPAM following my registration.

 

Apologies also for those who couldn't give a sh*t! Is this how you respond to all threads you have no interest in?

[peter_evans4]

<p>Luckily there are many alternatives to London's <cite>Daily Murdoch</cite>. The <cite>Guardian</cite> has background stories <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,497225,00.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,497453,00.html">here</a>. And the web has plenty more information.</p><p>Without having read the details of this latest case, I hope that Diana Diaz Lopez wins a big pile of dosh. And what do <em>you</em> think, Simon?</p>

[peter_evans4]

<p>Oops, wrong timing.</p><p><em>I guess my interest here is the same as CD's, i.e. when does the copyright get lost? and, since Korda is dead, for how long can those rights be passed down?</em></p><p>That of course depends on where you are in the world. Although <a href="http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html">this page</a> is about books, I recommend it as it's very informative and unusually internationalal; photos will tend to be treated in a similar way to books.</p>

[simon_ball1]

Thanks for the link Peter.

 

I think the key to the right to reproduce photographic images is that this should not be done for profitable means, and without acknowledgement of the author/owner of the image.

 

This is seen in this excerpt from Cuba's own copyright law, although the legal restrictions are much tougher, as you might expect:

 

SECTION I Utilization of a work without the consent of the author, and without remuneration.

 

Article 38. It is lawful, without the consent of the author and without payment of remuneration to him, but with obligation to make reference to the name of the author and to source, provided that the work is publicly known and respect given to its specific values:

 

(d) to reproduce a work by a photographic or analogous process when the reproduction is effected in a library, a documentation centre, a scientific institution or a teaching establishment, and provided always that reproduction is not for purposes of profit and that the number of copies is strictly limited to the requirements of a specific activity;

 

You can buy Che T shirts in Cuba though!!!

[andrew_somerset1]

This lawsuit appears to be a cynical attempt to punish Reporters Without Borders for criticizing Cuba.

 

This photo has been ripped off more, probably, than any other photo in history, and neither Korda nor his family pursued the infringements except in the case of a vodka ad. Yet when RSF, a vocal critic of the treatment of journalists by the Cuban government, uses the image, we get a lawsuit.

 

Sorry, but I find it hard to take this one very seriously.

 

Unfortunately, RSF is probably going to lose, which may drive them into bankruptcy.

[gabriel_roca]

To quote Korda: "To use the image of Che Guevara to sell vodka is a slur on his name and his memory."

 

A slur on his name and memory? Would that memory by the thousands of innocent Cubans Che helped to purge while systematically pillaging the Cuban infrastructure? It is scary to think that brutal dictators and their minions are still held in high regard by some in this world.

 

That said, the fact of the matter is that their is some infringement happening here - no matter how distasteful and saddening it is to see anyone as gifted as Mr. Korda was support tyrranical behavior, his images, just like all of ours, need to be protected.

 

Cheers.

[awahlster]

I'm still trying to figure out how a photograph I never even heard of until about 2 years ago got voted the most famous of all time?

 

This is the first time I have seen the qualifier of Most famous Leica photo. Cause there's lots of photo's that have been seen by a lot more people then this one. Heck The sailor and the nurse in times square comes to mind.

 

But then I've never been into causes.

[vic_.]

Somehow, having "Che Guevara" and "Dollar Millionaire" in the same thought stream seems a contradiction.

[douglas_green1]

Edward, Che was NOT a brutal dictator. CASTRO, either using or misusing Che's legacy, was a brutal dictator. Che was a revolutionary idealist, who's goals and actions you might disagree with, but he was simply never a dictator.

[bacsa]

Knowing the story behind that photograph(a rare case, for me) + the fact that Korda is dead, I don't think anybody should claim and/or have any kind of rights and claim royalties. It's just my oppinion; i know it's naive.

[mikep1]

Hmm, I didn't think this was even a "well-known" photo, let alone the "MOST FAMOUS."

 

Like someone else said - the sailor and girl would certainly be on the list of possibilities. But Che? I'll bet there's a Leica Pic around of Bob Marley - a way more influential person from the Caribbean than Che G. Oh well, somebody's looking for money - that's the real point, I guess.

[simon_ball1]

Maybe not in the US, but in the rest of the world I would suggest that this is the most widely recognised photograph ever produced. It is said that after the Mona Lisa, it is the the most reproduced human image of all time (The Times again!).

 

Further, I agree he was no dictator. He was an idealist, but his ideology was/is fatally flawed and resulted in much pain and suffering, in my humble opinion.

 

Fantastic image though!

[gabriel_roca]

Douglas,

 

I never said he was a brutal dictator - I stated he was the minion of a brutal dictator. Anyway, minion or not, there is a reason why he is known as "El Carnicero" (The butcher) on the island. Those of us who have family that were victims of the early purges must not forget.

 

That said, this isn't a political forum so I'm going back to the point - Korda's daughter has every right to protect the copyright of her father's image.

 

Cheers.

[markci]

<i>Cause there's lots of photo's that have been seen by a lot more people then this one. Heck The sailor and the nurse in times square comes to mind.</i><p>

Not even close. The Guevara image is far more internationally famous, and has been adopted into all sorts of logos and designs as a political symbol or just a fashion statement. You may bave even seen it without realizing it.

[jean_.]

---

 

Hmm, I didn't think this was even a "well-known" photo, let alone the "MOST FAMOUS."

 

---

 

I don't know if this depends on what part of the world one is living, but i have no doubt that this actually is the most (or at least among the top 3) known photos. It is now more an icon or a logo then a photo of a real person, and I see folks wearing che t-shirts who probably don't even know that this is a photo of a man who actually lived.

 

Among photographic educated people the focus may be different, and perhaps Man Ray or Ansel Adams or HCB are more present. But if you ask me what photo I've seen the most, i would immediately think of the che portrait. I was kind of surprised whan I saw the real photo, being used to the somewhat graphical logo-like reproduction throughout the years. Perhaps it is seldom seen as a photo, but as a logo?

[tony_brookes]

Of course some may say it was the most infamous photo of all time.

 

Me ? I think it's a just pretty ordinary picture of a rather foolish guy.

[vic_.]

<I>Maybe not in the US, but in the rest of the world I would suggest that this is the most widely recognised photograph ever produced. It is said that after the Mona Lisa, it is the the most reproduced human image of all time (The Times again!).</I>

<P>I thought David Hasselhoff's image was produced more times! Seriously, if you want to go by numbers, isn't it the picture of Chairman Mao? Even Andy Warhol incorporated it into his works. Did he pay the Commie Chinese Government any royalties?

[douglas_green1]

I'd be willing to bet that the poster of Mao's face was reproduced more than Che's, simply by virtue of the number of people in China.

 

And, I also think that there is a distinct difference between the ubiquity of an image and it's fame as a PHOTO. Because, the stylized logo based on Che's photo has clearly been reproduced more than the photo itself.

 

That being said, I do believe that copyright has to be maintained over time in order to be asserted. One cannot allow an image to be reproduced freely and without challenge for some 50 years, and THEN suddenly determine to assert copyright over it. The genie is out of the bottle, and the image is in the public domain.

[octavio bustard]

< I'll bet there's a Leica Pic around of Bob Marley - a way more influential person from the Caribbean than Che G.>

 

You're kidding me, right? Dude, just because you're an American (I am too by the way) doesnt mean you HAVE to be ignorant. Turn off the TV, put down the bong, and read a book.

[Troll]

Another vote for Alfred Eisenstadt's "Nurse and Sailor kissing in Times Square" as the most famous Leica photograph.

[francis a]

>I'd be willing to bet that the poster of Mao's face was reproduced more than Che's, simply by virtue of the number of people in China.

 

But, was it taken with a Leica?. this thread says 'most

famous Leica photo' ;-)

 

-Francis