Update: There are new developments in this story. Please see below.
There’s a dispute going on over in Texas that shows the importance of getting your contracts right as a photographer. A pair of Dallas newlyweds are going public with their disagreement with wedding photographer Andrea Polito over an album “cover” charge that Polito is asking for — a charge that doesn’t specifically show up in the contract.
There are a lot of reasons people use PayPal to pay for things online. It’s convenient, it’s (or at least it should be) secure, and the option is available on pretty much any site where you can buy things. But there are also cons, not the least of which being that pre-ordering things with PayPal can be a risky and dangerous game to play. Read more…
Forget the electronic line judge or the slow motion review by the refs, professional Ukrainian tennis player Sergiy Stakhovsky decided to take matters into his own hands when a line call didn’t go his way in the French Open on Monday.
If you were planning to install 500px’s popular photo sharing app on your iPhone or iPad today, you’re out of luck. The app was abruptly yanked from the iTunes App Store earlier today over the fact that users can search for photos showing artistic nudity.
Earlier this week we reported that it is now easier for photographers in the UK to pursue copyright infringement cases without having to shell out big money for a lawyer. While that law change is likely a big boon for photographers, there are other proposed law changes that have some photographers up in arms.
Is there or isn’t there a new line of compact system cameras (CSC) up Leica’s sleeve? Well, it depends on who you ask.
Kodak’s ongoing request to dole out millions of dollars in bonuses to executives in the midst of its bankruptcy struggles has been met with plenty of criticism, but perhaps none more so than from former employees who are anxiously waiting to see whether their pensions and benefits will be affected. The Wall Street Journal writes,
In letters filed to Kodak’s bankruptcy docket Wednesday, Richard Pignataro and Cecil D. Quillen Jr. said it’s not fair for Kodak to reward executives while they and other former Kodak workers face the risk that the company could seek to trim or modify their benefits.
“To reward people with money that should go to us and for reducing our potential payout is grossly unfair and I ask that you reconsider this bonus plan and most importantly assist us to retain what we worked so hard to earn,” Pignataro wrote in a letter dated July 16.
Kodak’s plan proposes to set aside $8.8 million in cash and deferred stock for 15 “key management employees,” including nine executives, deemed “essential” to Kodak’s ability to successfully restructure.
Ex-Kodak Employees Blast Bonus Plan [WSJ]
Image credit: money cash hoes by RiverRatt3
PDN has published an interview with art collector Jonathan Sobel, who’s suing photographer William Eggleston for creating and selling new prints of iconic photos that were once sold as “limited edition” prints. The new prints that recently fetched $5.9 million at auction were digital prints that were larger than the original ones.
The dispute boils down to this question: If an artist produces and sells a limited edition of a photographic work, and then re-issues the same image in a different size, or in a different print format or medium, does the re-issue qualify as a separate edition? Or do the new prints breach New York law that defines “limited edition,” and therefore defraud the buyers of those original limited edition versions of the work?
The answer could have a significant effect on the photographic print market. A number of photographers issue limited editions of their works, then later issue new editions of the same works, reprinted at different sizes or in different mediums. The reason is obvious: When an edition sells out, and scarcity drives up the price, artists want to cash in on pent up demand.
Sobel, who has spent 10 years studying and collecting Eggleston’s work, claims that eight of his prints that were previously worth $850,000 have been devalued by the recent sale.
Q&A: Art Collector Jonathan Sobel Explains His Beef with William Eggleston (via The Click)
The Daily Mail is no stranger to copyright infringement accusations, but this time they’ve taken it even further — publishing a photo after the owner denied them permission to do so. Alice Taylor of Wonderland recently snapped a photo of a “dangerously emaciated” mannequin promoting GAP’s “Always Skinny” line of clothes. As the photo started spreading on the web, The Daily Mail emailed Taylor to ask for permission to use the image, which she agreed to — on the condition that the newspaper donate £250 to a charity of her choice. When they balked at the price, she gave them a flat out “no”.
That same day, they published an article (
which has since been taken down [Update: It’s back up]) using both the photo and quotes lifted from The Washington Post without include any linkbacks. Taylor is now demanding that they cough up a £2000 donation for the unauthorized use.
(via Wonderland via Reddit)
Update: The Daily Mail has apologized for publishing the photos, which was apparently due to a breakdown in communications. They’re planning to settle with the Taylor.
At what point does inspiration turn into plagiarism? That’s the question that popped up last year when Rhianna was sued by David LaChapelle over scenes found in one of her music videos, and it’s the same issue with a lawsuit recently filed by photographer Janine Gordon against photographer Ryan McGinley. Gordon claims that 150 of McGinley’s images — including some used for a Levi’s ad campaign — are “substantially based” on her photos. In the three pairs of disputed images shown above, the ones on the left are by Gordon and the ones on the right by McGinley.