In 2022, an AI-generated work of art won the Colorado State Fair’s art competition. The artist, Jason Allen, had used Midjourney – a generative AI system trained on art scraped from the internet – to create the piece. The process was far from fully automated: Allen went through some 900 iterations over 80 hours to create and refine his submission.
The U.S. Copyright Office has warned that an image generated solely from a text prompt does not qualify for human authorship in fresh guidance released yesterday.
Artificial intelligence-powered image generators have exploded into the mainstream. Thanks to support from major stock sites, they are also an approachable route to making money. But as is almost always the case, when money gets involved, the situation quickly becomes far more complicated.
Zillow, which was found to have violated real estate photography company VHT's copyright when it used thousands of photos without permission, is arguing the photos should be treated as a group and not individually.
Last week, photographer Gregory Mango won an important lawsuit against online publication BuzzFeed; it's important, not because of the payout involved, but because of the precedent set by the court, which ruled that BuzzFeed was liable for 3rd party infringement of his photo because they removed his copyright info from the image.
A couple of months ago, automotive photographer Jack Schroeder and model Britni Sumida filed a lawsuit against car maker Volvo, accusing them of "willful and wanton" copyright infringement. In a major update to the case, Volvo is trying to get the suit thrown out by claiming that all public Instagram photos are basically free to use and share.
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York has re-opened the controversial copyright infringement lawsuit filed by photographer Stephanie Sinclair against the publication Mashable, who embedded one of her images through Instagram after she denied their request to license the photo for an article.
The past few years have made it abundantly clear that platforms hold disproportionate power in the online sphere – from Uber to Grubhub to Amazon. Online success is predicated on building both utility as well as a critical mass of users, and for that, platforms should be congratulated.
The Splash News and Picture Agency is making headlines today after filing a lawsuit against Jennifer Lopez for copyright infringement two years after she shared one of their photos of her in an Instagram Story without permission.
Famous model Gigi Hadid is being sued by a photo agency for posting a copyrighted photo of her on Instagram without permission. Hadid is now arguing that it was "fair use" because she contributed to the photo by smiling in it.
In September 2018, the European Parliament voted in favor of the highly controversial EU Copyright Directive, which aims to "harmonize" copyright law across Europe. But critics argue the law could destroy the open Web, and now Google is showing an eye-opening look at what its search results could soon look like.
The most recent version of the Copyright Law of the United States (December 2016) weighs in at a whopping 354 pages. And while there are areas of ambiguity, the basics and benefits of copyright registration for photographers are well-documented. Unfortunately, well-documented doesn’t mean well-understood, so we asked attorney (and former photo rep) Leslie Burns to weigh in on a number of common copyright misconceptions that still persist, and why you should register your copyright.
On Saturday, PetaPixel ran the story of a photographer whose photo had been imitated to a surprisingly thorough degree by a German ad agency. While a poll on that article suggested that a clear majority (~74%) of respondents saw it as unethical plagiarism, I thought I’d dig into the legal aspects a bit.
What do you do when a celebrity with almost 5 million followers on Instagram shares your photography with their audience without credit... twice? That's the question fashion photographer Don Mupasi is wrestling with this week.
When I was in college, I lived for a while in a crappy little rental house next to a cemetery. Neither I nor my roommate, Brad, knew how to cook anything, and we ate bologna sandwiches pretty much all the time. Eventually, someone gave us a cookbook so simple that even a half-starved English major could learn a few basic dishes--the first page actually had step-by-step instructions, with pictures, for making toast in a toaster.
Once bad boys of rock and roll Motley Crüe are in hot water with the photo community. Two famed rock photographers are suing the band for using their iconic images of the band all over merchandise sold during the Motley Crüe farewell tour last year without permission or payment.
For better or worse, copyright law hasn't changed much in the United States even as technology has made it far easier for people to steal or "appropriate" your work. But a new service called Blockai thinks it can help by using something called the bitcoin blockchain.
If you find that someone is using your photo online without your permission, one thing you can do is send a DMCA take down request to force the hosting company to remove the image. But be careful, though: you need to make sure the usage doesn't fall under fair use. Otherwise, you could be liable for sending a bad-faith take-down notice.
Heads up, photographers: major changes to US copyright law may be just around the corner, and you may or may not like what's being proposed. The US Copyright Office recently published a report titled "Orphan Works and Mass Digitization," which examines and recommends potential solutions for the issues of orphan works (i.e. the use of copyrighted images when the owner cannot be found) and mass digitization (i.e. projects like Google Books that digitize vast amounts of copyrighted works).
In its updated 1,222-page "Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition" released yesterday, the US Copyright Office took the side of Wikimedia in their argument with nature photographer David Slater when the office wrote that they cannot register works by monkeys.
One of Denmark’s most photographed attractions, a Little Mermaid statue, comes with a strange caveat: it can’t be photographed. Or rather, a photograph of it can't be used in a publication of any sort, even for journalistic purposes, without a big fat invoice finding its way to your door.
David Slater, the photographer who is currently embroiled in an argument (and quite possibly, soon to be embroiled in a lawsuit) with Wikimedia over the famous 'monkey selfie' images, recently spoke to ITN to clarify his position on the whole 'who owns the copyright' argument.
Update on 12/16/21: This video has been removed by its creator.
This hour and fifteen minute-long presentation is one of the most detailed and useful videos on copyright law for photographers that we've run across. Put together by B&H in New York, they asked the The Copyright Zone guys, photographer Jack Reznicki and lawyer Ed Greenberg, to tell viewers and attendees "everything you wanted to know about copyright but were afraid to ask."
One would think that those in the photography and music industries would act as allies -- both industries, after all, are built upon the hard work or artists and storytellers who have spent years honing their craft.
However, all too often, they wind up butting heads as was the case with the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus story two days ago and, now, with this Facebook rant from a major band's tour manager.
In the beginning of April, Sydney-based photographer Rohan Anderson found himself embroiled in a nasty back-and-forth with the band Red Jumpsuit Apparatus over a photo of his they had used without credit or permission.
Often, when you let someone know they've infringed on your copyright, you get an apology and an offer to make things right. This is not what happened to Anderson.
Getty Images and Agence France Presse are avid protectors of their own copyright privileges. But when the chaussure is on the other foot?
Haitian photographer Daniel Morel continues to find out that it's a whole different ball game, as the agencies try to evade the $1.22 million penalty levied against them for stealing eight of Morel's images of the aftermath of his country's devastating 2010 earthquake.
New York Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota may be running as a law and order guy, but apparently the "law" part doesn't cover intellectual property.
Turns out nine of the images used in a recent Lhota campaign ad -- an ad meant to illustrate what a mess the Big Apple used to be -- were taken without permission from Flickr users, several of whom are not too happy about it.
We recently spoke to PhotoAttorney.com’s Carolyn Wright and former ASMP President Richard Kelly about the importance of registering your copyright regularly. In that vein, A Photo Editor recently updated us on the Richard Reinsdorf v. Skechers case, which illustrates the complexity of copyright violation cases and re-emphasizes the necessity of copyright registration.
Finnish lawmakers could soon rewrite the nation's copyright laws, as a citizen-originated initiative aimed at easing piracy penalties and protecting consumer rights makes it way to Parliament.
There's a brand new service in town that's looking to help out those photographers who choose to share their images for free with the online community. Powered by Creative Commons, the new website Dotspin uses a hashtag and voting system to determine a photo's quality and give the photographer a chance to earn credits towards rewards such as restaurant gift cards.
Canipre -- short for Canadian Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement -- is a Canadian anti-piracy company that has joined hand-in-hand with film studios and record companies to track down those who steal and share stolen content over the internet. On the surface there's nothing wrong with this, what is wrong is when an intellectual property advocate is found using photos without permission, which is exactly what happened to Canipre a couple of days ago.
The wildly successful Kickstarter campaign Blackprints is currently at the center of a heated controversy over stolen images that has already involved one copyright dispute. It seems that the campaign's creator, Sabrina Chun, might have taken to acquiring photos of cars off of the Internet, changing them to black and white minimalist versions, and selling them as part of this campaign. (See Update)
A "copyright land-grab" that will "permit the commercial exploitation of [orphan] images" and lead to a "firestorm" of litigation. Those are the terms being used by some to describe a UK bill that just received Royal Assent last week, despite drawing fire from writers and photographers the world over.
Andy Baio has some experience with copyright infringement, especially where iconic photographs are concerned. In case you didn't read our previous coverage on the matter, his story goes something like this: in 2009, he put together an 8-bit version of Miles Davis' album "Kind of Blue" called "Kind of Bloop," and for the cover art he had a friend create a pixel-art version of Jay Maisel's famous cover photo.
Maisel wound up suing Baio for over $100,000 for the infringement, and despite an offer for free representation, potential court costs still forced Baio to settle out of court for $32,500. Baio wound up writing a long blog post about the matter, and now, a couple of years later, he's expanded on that post in the above talk he gave at Creative Mornings in Portland.
Les Irvin, the man behind the biggest Joni Mitchell fan site on the internet, is being sued by celebrity photographer Charlyn Zlotnik over four photos that were uploaded anonymously in the comments section of his website.
Copyright law is in place to protect artistic expression, not individual ideas. That was the crux of the reasoning behind a recent federal appeals court ruling that saw no infringement on the part of Sony. In the court's opinion, Sony's photo (right) was not nearly similar enough to Donald Harney's (left) and "no reasonable jury could find 'substantial similarity' between Sony's recreated photo and Harney's original."
The last few days have been rough on BuzzFeed, as a Reddit outcry has gained more and more traction regarding some light painting photos the website used to create ads without seeking permission or giving credit.
A big win for photographers in Canada: as of today, you now officially own the copyright to all your photographs regardless of whether they were commissioned. The development comes as a result of Canada major copyright reform bill (Bill C-11) taking effect this morning. One of the stated goals of the new copyright law is to, "give photographers the same rights as other creators."
In case you missed our earlier post, let's get you up to speed: in the internet age, the argument is that you don't own anything anymore. This is relevant because yet another copyright infringement lawsuit has made its way across our computer screens, this time between a student photographer and the Colorado University newspaper The CU Independent that printed and distributed his now famous falling bear image.
John Herrman over at BuzzFeed has written up an interesting piece on how and why "grabby" terms of service have become ubiquitous in the online world of social media: