Okay, I'm sending this one out to the peanut gallery for comment:
Okay, I'm sending this one out to the peanut gallery for comment:
Jeff Cofer seems to be under the impression that content creators cannot protect their content or even seek recompense via lawsuit, when that content is stolen. His argument, ad nauseum, is that photographs, as well as all other artwork, do not belong to their creator because they're so easy to create.
For example, in the article he posts below, a photographer takes a photo and sells it to a couple of online media outlets. The woman in the photo, unidentifiable by the photo alone, takes the photos, strips it of it's copyright and watermarks before uploading it to her social media. The photographer then sues because she's sharing for free what he's already sold. More importantly, she's sharing it without attribution. He created the photo. He owns the rights to it. She then stripped it of identifying marks and put it out there as her own.
In my opinion, he owns it and has a right to enforce his ownership of it. Jeff, however, believes that it's just a photo and she has a right to steal it because photographs are so easy to create.
Again: she didn't just share the article the photo showed up in. She didn't share the photographer's website. Instead she stripped it of it's identity and which, more often than not, is all an artist has.
Originally shared by Jeff Cofer
On the one hand, I’m not really a fan of paparazzi (to put it mildly). But on the other, they still have the right to protect their photos and own the rights to them, no matter who’s in the images. So, it’s not easy for me to pick sides here. What do you think?
[via FStoppers, Hello; cover image credits (right): The Door]
http://www.diyphotography.net/photographer-sues-model-gigi-hadid-instagram-post/
Jeff Cofer seems to be under the impression that content creators cannot protect their content or even seek recompense via lawsuit, when that content is stolen. His argument, ad nauseum, is that photographs, as well as all other artwork, do not belong to their creator because they're so easy to create.
For example, in the article he posts below, a photographer takes a photo and sells it to a couple of online media outlets. The woman in the photo, unidentifiable by the photo alone, takes the photos, strips it of it's copyright and watermarks before uploading it to her social media. The photographer then sues because she's sharing for free what he's already sold. More importantly, she's sharing it without attribution. He created the photo. He owns the rights to it. She then stripped it of identifying marks and put it out there as her own.
In my opinion, he owns it and has a right to enforce his ownership of it. Jeff, however, believes that it's just a photo and she has a right to steal it because photographs are so easy to create.
Again: she didn't just share the article the photo showed up in. She didn't share the photographer's website. Instead she stripped it of it's identity and which, more often than not, is all an artist has.
Originally shared by Jeff Cofer
On the one hand, I’m not really a fan of paparazzi (to put it mildly). But on the other, they still have the right to protect their photos and own the rights to them, no matter who’s in the images. So, it’s not easy for me to pick sides here. What do you think?
[via FStoppers, Hello; cover image credits (right): The Door]
http://www.diyphotography.net/photographer-sues-model-gigi-hadid-instagram-post/
Comments
Now if this was a contract photo where he paid her specifically for the exclusive right to the photograph, obviously we're talking simple contract law. But from the mention of paparazzi, it seems that this was not the case.
Which one links to the image?
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/TFDDx8guSz_PzVuneVsE3T0xDobpg-Byik6ZucIUxQp8Ur2XzYC3lSCec12ZVMrEx_spss-9wlU
refinery29.com - You Have To See This Pun Gigi Hadid Made
I don't know enough about instagram to know how they attribute ownership. Does the cropping fall under fair use? I was concerned about the the attempt to mark out the "as" as part of the editing, but the original shows it as part of the jacket.
I still think she has a right to use the photo because she is the subject and not at an event to expect photographers and the cropping.
I don't feel that Jeff's argument is valid. I also don't feel that your argument is 100% valid either.