#Photo #agencies to boycott #Oasis tour over rights #restrictions – Move comes after #band’s management says rights to #concert #images will last for only ONE year
#gigs #photography #livemusic #bands #ImageRights
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jul/10/photo-agencies-to-boycott-oasis-tour-rights-restrictions
#imagerights
To combat the rise of #AI #deepfakes, #Denmark is introducing a new digital #imagerights so that people own the #copyright to their own likeness. 1/2
www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
theguardian.com/technology/202...
@tess_machling This is shocking behaviour by #BritishMuseum; a publicly funded institution should do better!
Thanks for this update on Kafkaesque #ImageRights, & words for the #GollumEffect...
After today's efforts at populating a presentation with decent images under the correct licenses I'm filled with so much gratitude and warmth towards the people who put up things on #WikimediaCommons under public domain licenses.
Good images!
For any use!
I love you.
Thank you.
You're heroes to me.
Italian Court Orders Getty Images to Remove Photos of Michelangelo’s David https://petapixel.com/2024/02/01/italian-court-orders-getty-images-to-remove-photos-of-michelangelos-david/ #statueofdavid #michelangelo #publicdomain #gettyimages #imagerights #copyright #italy #News #Law
Judge Dismisses Photographer’s Lawsuit Over ‘Pulp Fiction’ Poster
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the photographer who shot the iconic photo of Uma Thurman on the poster for Pulp Fiction, saying he waited too long to file for copyright infringement.
The New York Post reports that photographer Firooz Zahedi filed a lawsuit against Miramax in May of 2020 for violating a contract that stipulated limited use of the photo to promote the film at the time of its release in 1994. Zahedi claimed that the studio used the image on "untold thousands of consumer products" that went beyond the original "limited" stipulation in the contract.
Zahedi was paid $10,000 to take the photo of Uma Thurman's character Mia Wallace at the time in an agreement that Miramax says was under a work-for-hire agreement (though the production studio was unable to locate the documents that would prove this claim). This, however, ended up not mattering in the ruling.
In 2015, Zahedi was gifted an action figure of the character that had packaging that featured the photo and in 2019, he was given a pair of socks that had the photo on them, which finally prompted him to file the suit.
Justice Dolly Gee found that Zahedi knew about Miramax's alleged unauthorized use of the photo dating back to when he received that first action figure but did not file the suit for five more years which placed the claim outside of the statute of limitations.
Because Zahedi posed with a photo of him holding the action figure in a photo taken by Zahedi's stepson on Instagram with a comment from Zahedi that stated "Thanks… Sometimes it’s best to settle for the little things in life," there was a provable moment in time that Zahedi knew about the alleged infringement, starting the clock for a lawsuit. That window then expired in 2018.
As a result, Justice Gee granted Miramax's request to dismiss the case.
The underlying issue is over the ownership of the image, the Hollywood Reporter notes. If the ownership of the image wasn't in contention and the argument was simply over the continued use of the image, Zahedi would be able to sue over infringement over the last three years without a deadline.
“Where the gravamen of a claim is ownership, the statute of limitations will bar a claim if (1) the parties are in a close relationship and (2) there has been an ‘express repudiation’ of the plaintiff’s ownership claim,” Justice Gee stated in her ruling.
Now Miramax reportedly plans to counterclaim against Zahedi for his alleged unauthorized use of the photo, as he used the photo on the back cover of a book of his works and sold prints of the photo through galleries.
#culture #news #copyright #copyrightinfringement #firoozzahedi #imagerights #lawsuit #miramax #movieposter #ownership #photorights #pulpfiction
Ancestry.com’s New Terms Allow it to Use Your Family Photos for Anything
On August 3, Ancestry.com -- the largest for-profit genealogy company in the world -- updated its terms and conditions to include new language that gives it the right to use any family photos uploaded to its system for anything it likes, forever and without limits.
Ancestry's updates to its terms and conditions focus mainly on changes to the rights it has as a company to use photos that are uploaded by users into its system:
[B]y submitting User Provided Content through any of the Services, you grant Ancestry a perpetual, sublicensable, worldwide, non-revocable, royalty-free license to host, store, copy, publish, distribute, provide access to, create derivative works of, and otherwise use such User Provided Content to the extent and in the form or context we deem appropriate on or through any media or medium and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed or discovered. This includes the right for Ancestry to copy, display, and index your User Provided Content. Ancestry will own the indexes it creates.
PetaPixel spoke with Mickey Osterreicher, General Counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPAA) regarding the change and if he believed that such a broad set of terms was reasonable.
"It always concerns me when the rights that are being sought are overly broad. I certainly understand when lawyers write these things up that they do it for the benefit of their client or their company, but sometimes I don't think they think about the fact that what they ask for is much greater than what they actually need," Osterreicher says. "Until someone questions it or pushes back, it's there. it's one of the things that I and the NPAA stress all the time. People really need to read and understand terms of service and conditions: it's a contract."
"This change to the Ancestry Terms and Conditions is consistent with the manner in which other genealogy research platforms handle user-provided content," the company writes in a blog that PetaPixel was pointed to when the company was reached for comment. "It was never intended to enable Ancestry to do anything with our users’ content other than facilitate a vibrant family history community that brings the value of personal discoveries to all."
Ancestry says that the change was only meant to encompass the expected services of the genealogy company. It says that its goal is to connect its users by allowing them to share discoveries about their family histories with each other, and sharing photos, documents, and stories are part of that. Should a user want to make its photos private, Ancestry says it respects that.
This might be the case in spirit, but the overly broad language tells a different story.
"Even though Ancestry doesn't take your copyright, they pretty much take everything you get by owning the copyright. You can still use the photos elsewhere, but the display rights, the right to copy, pretty much everything is given to Ancestry. You can't revoke the sublicense or get paid for it," Osterreicher says.
He explains that to the extent that Ancestry would like to use the images for the purposes that the company was created for, that would be all that they would really need in an updated set of terms. But instead, the company only barely stops short of claiming the copyright but is essentially covered to do everything that owning the copyright to the image would grant. Even where the company was not specific, it has covered itself by saying that it still has rights to technologies that may not even be discovered or developed yet.
Ancestry admits that it received feedback about the update and explains that users can still revoke the rights given to Ancestry should they desire.
Notwithstanding the non-revocable and perpetual nature of this license, it terminates when your User Provided Content is deleted from our systems. Be aware that to the extent you elected to make your User Provided Content “public” and other users copied or saved it to the Services, this license continues until the content has been deleted both by you and the other users.
While it is true that deleting any photos from Ancestry's server would remove the company's rights to them, the second section says that specifically deleting something doesn't necessarily complete the process.
"Even if you took the photo down or terminated [your Ancestry subscription], if somebody else posted the photo, Ancestry continues to own it," Osterreicher says.
Another point that Osterreicher raises is that family photos taken by a hired portrait photographer or a photo studio are likely commonly uploaded. In those cases, he says that most of the time the user doesn't own the rights to that copyright -- the photographer does.
"There are two things going on here," he says. "One, a discussion about your own images and whether you want to grant those rights. Or the second, if you're posting images someone else owns rights to and if you may be violating their copyright."
Regardless of the intent of terms and conditions changes, Osterreicher says it's important for people to look at user agreements the same way they would look at the contract to buy a car. It is unlikely that someone would just buy a car without reading the fine print about the interest rates, for example. He says that in the rush for instant gratification, many people overlook important aspects of terms and conditions. In this case, Ancestry asked for much more than it needed, and the only way that it would get changed is if enough people called for it.
"The analogy that I normally make is that copyright is very much like owning a home as opposed to renting or leasing. There are many things you can do with that home when you have the deed, and that is the same with copyright. So in a way, even if you own the copyright and grant the license, it's like someone can come into your house and do whatever they want," he explains. "You can still live there, and own it, but they are free to do whatever they want, whenever they want. I don't think most people think of it that way when it comes to pictures."
Image credits: Background of header photo licensed via Depositphotos.
#law #news #copyright #imagerights #legal #mickeyosterreicher #nationalpressphotographersassociation #nppa #rightsgrab #termsandconditions
Rapper Jay-Z Sues Photographer for Selling His Likeness
Acclaimed rapper Jay-Z has filed a lawsuit against photographer Jonathan Mannion -- who photographed Jay-Z's 1996 debut album "Reasonable Doubt" -- for misusing his likeness, which includes the sale of merchandise such as photo prints and shirts, and licensing his image without the rapper's permission.
According to Reuters, the complaint states that Mannion violated Jay-Z's publicity rights under California law and that the photographer cannot sell the rapper's image or do with them as he pleases without his consent.
"Mannion has developed a highly-profitable business by selling copies of photographs of JAY-Z on Mannion’s website and retail store, and by selling licenses to others to use JAY-Z’s image," the complaint alleges. "Mannion has done so on the arrogant assumption that because he took those photographs, he can do with them as he pleases. But JAY-Z never gave Mannion the right to use his likeness for these or any other purposes. And without that permission, Mannion has no legal right to do so. JAY-Z has asked Mannion to stop, but he refuses to do so."
The lawsuit alleges that not only has Mannion declined to stop selling the images, but he requested millions of dollars in order to do so.
Jay-Z's complaint also alleges that Mannion's entire career is based on his early association with the rapper and asserts that the photographer knows he needs Jay-Z's permission in order to sell the photos, but "does not care." Further, the complaint paints Jay-Z as a victim of years of exploitation and states that "it is an all-too-common occurrence in the music industry for a person in Mannion’s position to take advantage of up-and-coming stars who are not always in a position to vindicate their rights."
Mannion was initially compensated for his work for Jay-Z's 1996 album and during that process captured "hundreds of photographs" of the rapper according to legal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. The photographer has since sold those photos for sometimes upwards of tens of thousands of dollars each over the years.
"It is ironic that a photographer would treat the image of a formerly-unknown Black teenager, now wildly successful, as a piece of property to be squeezed for every dollar it can produce," the complaint continues. "It stops today."
The photographer's attorney Sara Hsia told Reuters that she is "confident that the First Amendment protects Mr. Mannion's right to sell fine art prints of his copyrighted works."
The lawsuit is the latest whose verdict will hinge on who owns the rights to the photos of celebrities -- the photographer, or the celebrity whose likeness has been captured.
In February, Lebron James settled with a photographer over his alleged misuse of the photographer's photo on social media. In that case, the photographer alleged that James had misappropriated his image for his social media feed without compensating the photographer. It was the most recent example of celebrities using photos on social media without the permission of the photographer.
To date, cases where image rights are concerned have generally favored the photographer. In this particular case, the final verdict may hinge on the original contract signed between Jay-Z and Mannion and the image rights stated therein.
Image credits: Header photo licensed via Depositphotos.
#culture #law #news #celebrity #celebrityphotographer #celebrityphotography #celebrityphotos #celebrityportraits #copyright #imagerights #jayz #jonathanmannion #legal #rapper
Photography Copyright and Licensing Simplified and Explained
Although professional photographers may deal with copyright and licensing regularly, it is not right to assume that clients are just as versed. For that reason, an architecture photographer has put together a simplified explanation to help business owners better educate their clients on who owns the produced photos and how they can be used.
Questions surrounding copyright and licensing can be a complex issue to navigate not just for clients -- who may not have dealt with purchasing and using intellectual property before -- but also for beginner photographers who are just entering the business. Clear communication between the photographer and the client prior to booking the job can help resolve any legal issues that may arise due to ambiguous wording in the contract or a misunderstood verbal agreement.
To help photographers better educate their clients about copyrights and image use -- and to explain this in a simple way without the use of complex legal jargon -- Kansas City-based architecture photographer Matthew Anderson put together a brief YouTube video that puts the topic into a simple context for better understanding. Not to be used as professional legal advice, his simplified explanation compares image use with that of other intellectual property, such as music.
Image theft and misuse is something that photographers are likely to encounter in their career at some point -- such as the below example from Anderson himself where a company wanted to use his image on the social media app for free -- which is why it's important to clearly articulate who the produced work is owned by and how it is permitted to be used by clients.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Matthew Anderson | Photography (@matthewaphoto)
Although adding clarity to the discussion of image rights and usage is not a guarantee that the guidelines will be adhered to nor does it protect the photographer from strangers stealing work, it can at least help avoid certain situations that could have been resolved if the client or shoot collaborator fully understood the received image rights. This also includes situations when a client is happy to share the produced images with a third party -- although no malice may be intended -- without realizing that they might be required to ask for the photographer's permission first.
Intellectual property is one of the most important assets of a photography business, so it is important to guide clients with clear instructions at every possible opportunity which will help avoid profit loss in the future.
More of Anderson's architecture photography-based videos can be found on his YouTube channel and his own photography work can be seen on his Instagram.
#educational #law #news #commerciallicensing #copyright #copyrights #imagerights #imageuse #licensing
MoMA Wants Your Photos for Free, Perpetually, and ‘Any Purpose’
The Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) is soliciting photographers to share photos on Instagram based on monthly themes. Those who participate will be featured on the MoMA's social channels, but also give the museum significant rights to use the photos "for any purpose."
In honor of National Photography Month and its new exhibition Fotoclubismo: Brazilian Modernist Photography, 1946–1964, the museum is encouraging photographers to "get creative with a new photo challenge." It is based on the Fotoclubismo idea and on the achievements of São Paulo’s Foto-Cine Clube Bandeirante (FCCB), which the musuem describes as "a group of amateur photographers whose ambitious and innovative works embodied the abundant originality of postwar Brazilian culture."
Called the MoMA Photo Club, the museum states that each month starting in May -- for an undisclosed period -- it will offer a new theme and host, kicking off with mountain climber and environmental activist Conrad Anker with the theme "Abstractions from Nature."
[
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by MoMA The Museum of Modern Art (@themuseumofmodernart)
The museum is calling on anyone to share their "abstractions from nature" by taking "a closer look at the world around you" and capture it from a new perspective. In return for submissions, the MoMA says that it will use those photos on its social channels, the MoMA website, and on digital screens in New York City subways.
We can’t wait to see what you make. Share your photos with us using #MoMAPhotoClub. Select photos will be featured on our social channels, the MoMA website, and on digital screens in select New York City subways.
But the fine print on MoMA's website explains that those who use the hashtag would be giving up significantly more of their image rights. This would not immediately be noticed by those who only saw MoMA's Instagram post above or did not read the lightly-colored fine print on the announcement page which is not easily navigable to from Instagram.
By tagging photos using #MoMAPhotoClub, you grant The Museum of Modern Art (“MoMA”) (and those authorized by MoMA) a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, sublicensable, non-exclusive license to publicly display, distribute, reproduce, and create derivative works of such photos, in whole or in part (including, but not limited to, any associated captions and handles), in any media now existing or later developed, for any purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising and promotion, and inclusion on MoMA’s website and social media channels.
Not only can photos be used in the way that MoMA describes on Instagram posts advertising the event, but the museum states that using the hashtag gives them implicit right to use that photo in perpetuity, sublicense it, and use it "for any purpose" including commercially which includes advertising and promotion.
[
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by MoMA The Museum of Modern Art (@themuseumofmodernart)
"It's certainly an overreach and a rights grab," Mickey H. Osterreicher, the General Counsel for the National Press Photographer's Association tells PetaPixel. "It's unfortunate that once again that far too many people devalue photography. What is wonderful, obviously, is that certainly because everyone has a cell phone and therefore everyone has a camera, everyone can take pictures, but that doesn't make everyone a photographer -- but that also doesn't mean that their images don't have value."
From MoMAs's Photo Club blog post.
Osterreicher says that it is particularly disheartening to see that this claim of rights was made by a museum, an organization that is supposed to recognize creative work and artists.
"You've got a museum that's supposed to value creative work, whether it's by an artist with a paintbrush or a sculter with chisel, or a photographer with a pro camera or even just an iPhone," he says. "We all recognize some incredible images that are made hundreds if not thousands of times a day by people using their iPhones and it's very creative work and it certainly has value. To make it seem very open and friendly while in the meantime the fine print says that you're granting all these rights not only for them to use them, but to use them into perpetuity to be able to sublicense them and to be able to use them for advertising and promotion is very disappointing."
Osterreicher says that he doesn't think it's likely that the MoMA would ask painters to send in their paintings, so why it believes that asking the same of photographers is fine hurts the medium greatly. He references the case where Andy Warhol took and used a photographer's photo as the basis for his work, and how Warhol seemed to believe that he was doing the photographer a favor by using her work beyond the scope of the license. Osterreicher describes it as a kind of artistic "elitism" that MoMA's alleged overreach here is another symptom of.
"Clearly if there wasn't value to these images, why would they be asking for them and these rights?" he poses.
The MoMA did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Osterreicher encourages all photographers, regardless of camera or medium, to always review the fine print from any organization where photos are solicited to assure that the value of photography is upheld.
Image credits: Background of header photo licensed via Depositphotos.
#law #news #imagerights #instagram #legal #mickeyosterreicher #moma #momaphotoclub #museumofmodernart #nppa
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.07
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst