Some times a lawsuit for copyright infringement isnt' worth it.

[oldwolf]

So what does everyone think about this?

Photographer Drops Arizona Shooting Copyright Lawsuit - JPG News

[jdepould]

The demand is too high, but it annoys the hell out of me that the public perception is that the photographer is the one profiteering, and not the greedy something-somethings who stole in the first place.

[vomviersen]

I'm curious as to how portrait shoots like the one in question would typically be handled in terms of copyright. Who owns the image, do portrait photographers typically sell the rights to the image to the buyer or not, and who is allowed to give permission to others (such as a media outlet) to use it.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I haven't purchased portraits since high school graduation and copyright was not a big concern with those, then or now.

[theosus]

Originally Posted by jdepould

The demand is too high, but it annoys the hell out of me that the public perception is that the photographer is the one profiteering, and not the greedy something-somethings who stole in the first place.

I don't see it as theft. The family bought the picture and gave it free of charge to the media to use to report on the tragic death of their daughter. Now if the family sold the picture to the media, I understand the issue.

[sk66]

The "media" used a picture they did not have the rights to use.....very similar to grabbing it off of the photographer's (or familie's) website without permission.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by jdepould

The demand is too high, but it annoys the hell out of me that the public perception is that the photographer is the one profiteering, and not the greedy something-somethings who stole in the first place.

Donating "portions of the proceeds" still means profiting (although he sated differently in later interview).

IMO he's not so much "profiteering" as much as having been rather insensitive....The family provided a pretty picture of a beautiful girl so others could know her/ remember her in that light because she's DEAD....

I can see both sides of this...I mean, he wasn't suing the family and the media's use of the image was wrong......If it had been Getty or similar who sold his work wrongfully to a ton of outlets I'd probably feel a lot stronger in his favor. As it is I think the handling was a bit misguided at best.

[theosus]

Originally Posted by sk66

The "media" used a picture they did not have the rights to use.....very similar to grabbing it off of the photographer's (or familie's) website without permission.

But they did have the right to use it, the family gave it to them... It said so right in the article. The family gave them permission.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by theosus

But they did have the right to use it, the family gave it to them... It said so right in the article. The family gave them permission.

It wasn't theirs to give. That's not how copyright works.

[graciousness]

Originally Posted by theosus

But they did have the right to use it, the family gave it to them... It said so right in the article. The family gave them permission.

The photographer owns the original rights to the image. The family who paid for the portraits only paid to sit in on the portrait and whatever number of copies of the photos they purchased. They may be the ones sitting in the family photo, but unless they paid for the actual ownership of the photo and the photographer was happy enough to give up his rights to it, the ownership goes to the photographer.

Whilst the family may have given the media their paid copy of the photo, they did not obtain the photographer's permission to have his "work" or owned image to be displayed publicly.

However, in saying all that, I think that photographer is an insensitive, profiteering sleezebag. Couldn't he have just been kind and respectful to the bereaved family and allow them to use the photo? At the most, he could have just, at least, contacted the family and advised and kindly explained that they needed to get his permission when they submitted his photo to the media. But no, he chose to publicly make a big deal out of the situation and saw the potential profits he could have been making from media use and exposure.

This story is not about copyrights and its violation; this is about greed and an opportunistic photographer's tale on how to ruin your own reputation.

[theosus]

I guess it's not worth arguing over. My opinion just differs on this. The photograph wouldn't exist without the family paying for it, they should have the right to give it away to be used in this manner. It's not some fine art print the photographer made of the beach or something, and then sold. It's a work for hire.
We have parents come to our office with missing kids or adults. Often they bring pro portraits, including school pictures. Those get scanned in and distributed through the national center for missing children, the local media, or even our Internet site. Youre saying we shouldnt get the information out because some photographer might cry in his corn flakes? That's just awful...
I hope the guy who started this mess loses a crapload of business. The Enron guys are looking at him and saying wow, we were greedy, but look at This guy...