Photo Release for a Horse (of course) Reply

Photo releases are a useful tool for obtaining permission to photograph models (of all photo releasetypes and species) and to use the photos of the model for specific purposes.  While we may all think of beautiful people as models, horses and other animals can be models too.  A photo release may be needed from a horse’s owner to take and use photographs of a horse for specific purposes including publication, printing, selling, distribution and commercial use.

I recently read that the owner of horse-photobomber (featured in the prize winning photograph above) has demanded some of the prize money won by the folks who took the photograph and entered it into a contest.  While the photobombing probably wasn’t planned, obtaining a photo release before taking, using or entering the photograph in the contest would likely have avoided the dispute that has developed over the prize money.  The horse’s “smile” does add to the photograph.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: earlier posts on photo releases at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/photo-releases; a news article on the dispute: Photobomb Horse Owner Demands Share of £2000 Selfie-Prize at www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/02/owner-photobomb-horse-demands-share-2000-selfie-prize?CMP=fb_gu; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Explaining the Getty Images “freebies” (see the fine print) 2

In a revolutionary move, Getty Images has just made some of its stock photos free to use on websites, blogs and social media so long as the photos are used for editorial purposes and with Getty Images’ new Embedded Viewer.  Undoubtedly, Getty Images is motivated to try to control and “cash in” on the rampant on-line photo piracy.  In exchange for “free use” of Getty Images’ photos and images, folks will authorize data collection and advertising by Getty Images and others.  Here is how Getty Images explains their new Embedded Viewer and defines the permitted editorial purposes in their website Terms of Use:

Embedded Viewer

Where enabled, you may embed Getty Images Content on a website, blog or social media platform using the embedded viewer (the “Embedded Viewer”). Not all Getty Images Content will be available for embedded use, and availability may change without notice. Getty Images reserves the right in its sole discretion to remove Getty Images Content from the Embedded Viewer. Upon request, you agree to take prompt action to stop using the Embedded Viewer and/or Getty Images Content. You may only use embedded Getty Images Content for editorial purposes (meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest). Embedded Getty Images Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship; (b) in violation of any stated restriction; (c) in a defamatory, pornographic or otherwise unlawful manner; or (d) outside of the context of the Embedded Viewer.

Getty Images (or third parties acting on its behalf) may collect data related to use of the Embedded Viewer and embedded Getty Images Content, and reserves the right to place advertisements in the Embedded Viewer or otherwise monetize its use without any compensation to you. (http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/Terms.aspx)

As you can see, Getty reserves the rights to 1) change the terms, 2) remove the image, 3) place advertisements in the Embedded Viewer, 4) collect data from folks who use an embedded image, 5) permit 3rd parties to collect data from folks who use an embedded image.

This is an interesting way for Getty Images to “make new rules” regarding free use of their images on blogs, websites and social media.   It will be interesting to see if folks who are currently copying and using Getty Images’ photos without permission take the time to use the Embedded Viewer.  Using the Embedded Viewer has more steps than simply right clicking and copying an image, which is how I’d guess most infringers currently access Getty Images’ photos.  To use an image with Getty Images’ Embedded Viewer, HTML code provided by Getty Images needs to be copied and pasted into the source code of a website.  Here is a link to steps for using the Embedded Viewer http://www.gettyimages.com/Creative/Frontdoor/embed and a screen shot of the code that needs to be used in order to embed an image of a surprised guy:

Embedding an image from Getty Images http://www.gettyimages.com

Embedding an image from Getty Images http://www.gettyimages.com

Will be interesting to follow this development and see how it goes.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

For more information see, Getty Images websites at http://www.gettyimages.com/Creative/Frontdoor/embed; and the Terms of Use at http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/Terms.aspx;  an article by Russell Brandom in The Verge website titled, The World’s Largest Photo Service Just Made Its Pictures Free To Use available at http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use; for other blog posts on Photo Copyright; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

                                                                Screen shot from Getty Images   http://www.gettyimages.com

Am I in the background of your reality show? Asking for permission in NYC Reply

I was asked by a film crew if I consented to being in the background of a reality show that was being tapped on Lexington Avenue, recently. Being asked for my consent struck me as interesting and was likely due to the Nieves v. HBO case in 2006.

In the Nieves v. HBO case, a woman who was standing on the street in NYC during the filming of a reality show called Family Bonds… was noticed by the film crew and captured on film along with crude remark made by the film crew regarding her sexual allure. The woman sued HBO for using her likeness in a derogatory manner on their television show without her consent. The court issued a brief opinion refusing HBO’s request to dismiss the cause of action.

A quote from the court’s opinion:

…in New York privacy claims are founded solely upon sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law. The statute protects against the appropriation of a plaintiff’s name or likeness for defendants’ benefit. Thus, it creates a cause of action in favor of any person whose name, portrait or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without * * * written consent. The action may be brought to enjoin the prohibited use and may also seek damages for any injuries sustained including exemplary damages for a knowing violation of the statute.

Btw… when I was asked for my consent to be in the background of a reality show taping… I did not consent. I walked the other way.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See, Nieves v. Home Box Office, Inc., No. 100966/05, 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 365 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Jan. 10, 2006), aff ’d, 817 N.Y.S.2d 227 (1st Dep’t 2006) and www.kasterlegal.com.

Unleashing viral whiplash instead of a lawsuit 1

An online following of over 617,000 folks can be a powerful negotiation tool.  I read recently that a NY street-DKNY BKKphotographer leveraged his online following by “unleashing a viral whiplash” on DKNY for using some of his photographs in a Bangkok window display without permission.

Evidently, DKNY approached the photographer for permission to use some of his photographs… but the parties couldn’t agree on a price and the deal fizzled out.  Yet… some of the photographer’s photographs ended up being used anyway in the window display of a DKNY store in Bangkok.  Someone who happened to be familiar with the photographer’s work (possibly one of the 617,000 folks who follow the photographer online) saw the images in Bangkok and notified the photographer.

This is where it gets interesting!  In response, the photographer launched the following online campaign by posting this on Facebook at 9:01am on 2/25/13 [The Facebook page for HUMANS OF NEW YORK]:

I am a street photographer in New York City. Several months ago, I was approached by a representative of DKNY who asked to purchase 300 of my photos to hang in their store windows “around the world.” They offered me $15,000. A friend in the industry told me that $50 per photo was not nearly enough to receive from a company with hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. So I asked for more money. They said “no.”

Today, a fan sent me a photo from a DKNY store in Bangkok. The window is full of my photos. These photos were used without my knowledge, and without compensation.

I don’t want any money. But please SHARE this post if you think that DKNY should donate $100,000 on my behalf to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. That donation would sure help a lot of deserving kids go to summer camp. I’ll let you guys know if it happens.

The online campaign quickly transformed into viral whiplash.  The Facebook post garnered over 4,500 comments the same day that it was posted and was noticed and “liked” by over 41,000 folks and was shared over 30,000 times.  Within four hours, DKNY issued a prompt apology and pledged to make a $25,000 charitable donation to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn in the photographer’s name.  [Click to read DNKY’s statement issued at 12:52pm on 2/25/13 and the photographer’s response accepting the donation as a settlement issued at 1:18pm on 2/25/13].

Not the full $100,000 donation that was asked for… but a creative an interesting negotiation and resolution within FOUR hours.  In support of this creative negotiation I “liked” the Facebook page for HUMANS OF NEW YORK, becoming follower number 617,012.

See also, a creative resolution to a trademark infringement between Franklin & Marshall college and a hot European Brand at http://wp.me/p10nNq-lu; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

 

Summary for Photographers of IP Legal Freebies: Reply

And a few lagniappe topics:

This post is a valentine for my mom… who will be lecturing on this topic for other authors and photographers over the weekend.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

 

What happens to your photos once posted to Facebook? Reply

Facebook thrives because people want to connect and share photographs and other content. However, connecting and sharing content on Facebook means that Facebook makes the rules for how the content is shared, used, copied and made available to others. (Facebook also has the privilege of changing these terms of use at anytime and is known for making significant policy changes frequently. For the current Terms of Service see –>; http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms).

Here are three significant components of Facebook’s current policy concerning photographs that you post to Facebook (these are the terms as of today… and may change tomorrow):

  1. …you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. (Subject to how you set the privacy and application settings on your account).
  2. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
  3. Facebook respects the intellectual property rights of others and is committed to helping third parties protect their rights. Our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities prohibits users from posting content that violates another party’s intellectual property rights. When we receive a valid notice of IP infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content. We also terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.

What can happen to your photographs when you post it to Facebook under these Terms? The short answer – ALMOST ANYTHING… especially if you have left the default settings on your Facebook page to allow public access to the content you post on Facebook.  If however, someone else posts a photograph that you took and own the rights to… then you have a bit more muscle and can request that Facebook remove or disable access to the photograph by reporting a copyright infringement to Facebook.

To report a copyright infringement on Facebook go to –>; https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=190268144407210 …you will see that there is an online form as well as a contact email [ip@fb.com] and mailing address.

See also: http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms, https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=190268144407210; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

Copyright Law – Using photos of other people on your website, blog or publications Reply

Using recognizable pictures of other people on your website, blog or publication of any kind requires their express permission (unless they are a celebrity or it is ‘newsworthy’ photo).  How do you do this?  Ask them for permission AND have them sign a simple agreement giving you permission to use their image.  Specify in the agreement the ways, websites, publications etc where the photo will be used.

Here are a few myths and truths on this topic: 

MYTH:  Just because you took a photo of the bride at her wedding gives you permission to use it on your website

MYTH:  Having permission to use a portrait in a book automatically gives you permission to use it in a film

MYTH:  It’s okay to use a portrait you took of someone in a public place without permission

TRUTH:  Virtually any photo of a celebrity is considered newsworthy and okay to use

Cover your bases and get permission to use the photos you take of other people at the time you take the picture.  (These types of agreements are called a Photo Release or Model Release).

See –> http://wp.me/p10nNq-J for more information on Photo releases and www.kasterlegal.com.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

Copyright Law: Using someone else’s photograph in your blog, website or promo materials 2

If you have reached this posting because you Googled, “is it free to use photographs taken from another person’s website” ….the answer is probably NO… and this post is dedicated to you.

Just because it is EASY to access and copy photographs via the internet doesn’t mean that the photographs are free for the taking.  Copying a photograph from another website or online article or blog can easily violate another person’s copyright in the image.

Did you know that every original work (including photographs, designs, poetry, text, music… etc) that is created in the US today, is instantly vested with copyright as soon as it is written down, printed… or ‘fixed in any tangible form’?  It’s true.  Copyright is instantly vested in fixed, original works and this means that the owner has the right to monetize the work. (ie charge a fee to license or sell a photograph).

As you might guess, the price to license a photograph depends on how you plan to use the image and for how long.  For example to license a photograph from Getty Images for 1 month, to use on a social media site costs approximately $160… and $360 for 3 months.  (the price varies by image etc).  Or hire a photographer to take photographs for you!  Or take them yourself.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: http://www.gettyimages.com