Copyrigh lawsuits are getting ridiculous. [Archive]

Jamie123

07-12-2011, 13:26

Just ran across this article (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/corbett/ryan-mcginley-sued-for-copyright-violation7-11-11.asp). This is ridiculous. I mean can you really claim copyright for a person's expression in a picture, a centered composition or a blue sky? It's so far off that it's actually amusing.

Brian Sweeney

07-12-2011, 13:29

Someone has a patent on using a LASER pointer to stimulate the hunt instinct in cats.

Would not hold up.

Bobbo

07-12-2011, 13:34

In America, you can pretty much sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether or not you will succeed is something completely different.

This isn't like the rip-off of the Miles Davis photo, which was an obvious infringement (if it wasn't, there would not have been a settlement). We'll see how this one goes...

tom.w.bn

07-12-2011, 13:43

The descendants of Yves Klein should sue anyone who uses blue in his/her paintings or photos because he invented the use of blue.

Jamie123

07-12-2011, 14:06

It is pretty obvious commercial copying, I bet there is a payment made.

I don't agree at all. It's obviously commercial but it's not obvious at all that it's copying. Let's look at the picture of the guy jumping in the air. People jumping on a trampoline outside usually have skies behind them. That's a side effect of jumping high. Was Gordon the first to photograph a guy jumping on a trampoline? The comparison of the blue picture is just ridiculous. The two have nothing in common. The one with the girl in the middle of the picture has some similarities regarding pose and expression but the setting is completely different.

Besides, while a couple of the images are from a Levi's campaign, the large part of Gordan's lawsuit concerns McGinley's artworks. She's just bitter that his prints fetch higher prices than hers.

kxl

07-12-2011, 14:15

It looks like the plaintiff's legal team is taking a deep pockets approach. Whether or not this is truly copyright infringement is secondary to how risk and negative publicity averse one of the co-defendants is, and therefore likely willing to settle -- the deeper the pockets the better. Looking at the list of co-defendants, the winners is.... Levis!!! Or am I being too cynical?

Kevin

07-12-2011, 14:27

If just one picture's essence from a large base of work had been copied then no, it would not be considered an infringement. But if the essence/form of 100+ images are copied then yes, this could be considered a copyright infringement by the courts.

Such rulings have been made in the past and I'm eager to hear about the outcome of this one!

Jamie123

07-12-2011, 14:48

She won't collect a dime on the artworks. But the fact a settlement has been offered is the reason I think a payment will be made.

A payment may very well be made (as described in the article, a modest settlement has been offered which she refused) but that does not mean that it's "commercial copying". All it means is that the defendant doesn't think it's worth the money and effort to keep on going until the end.

I also don't think the commercial vs. artwork question is that simple. The case of Cariou against Prince showed that, just because it's an artwork, it doesn't mean that copyright infringement is fair game. I don't know the extent of the similarities in all of the 150 images she is claiming to be copied but if it's as weak as the examples provided on artnet I think she simply doesn't have a case. She's likely to get paid some money, anyways, though.

Neare

07-12-2011, 15:07

inSIGHT

07-12-2011, 15:34

Besides, while a couple of the images are from a Levi's campaign, the large part of Gordan's lawsuit concerns McGinley's artworks. She's just bitter that his prints fetch higher prices than hers.

She is very bitter and this is the most logical motive for such a ridiculous suit.

Ranchu

07-12-2011, 15:45

The photos do look conceptually similar. 150 is a lot of pictures, I guess I wouldn't be shocked if the dude was creeping around stealing ideas from non commercial artists. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Brian Sweeney

07-12-2011, 15:47

Hey Guys,

Just to let you know I took 10 photos of flowers with Bokeh around them. They're copyright to me yeah. So if anyone else ever takes 10 photos or so that look roughly the same I'm going to sue you.

You have been warned.

Hugs & Kisses,
Ari

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=97&pictureid=3388

I hereby grant unlimited rights to use fenceposts for Shim tests.

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=97&pictureid=1267

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=97&pictureid=1009

I have a 100 of these...

and even more like this.
http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=286&pictureid=3377

Kevin

07-12-2011, 15:58

Hey Guys, Just to let you know I took 10 photos of flowers with Bokeh around them. They're copyright to me yeah. So if anyone else ever takes 10 photos or so that look roughly the same I'm going to sue you.

Dude, if you're gonna sue other fence artists in the USA you had better register your copyright there first, otherwise you can only sue for actual damages. Without formal registration you can forget about collecting statutory damages and legal fees.

Paolo Bonello

07-12-2011, 16:53

Looks like you gotta be careful who you rub shoulders with these days in-case you might be so moved by their work that you would spend a year or more trying to reproduce (more than a hundred times over) the essence of what makes them so great.

Roger Hicks

07-12-2011, 23:48

Deep pockets. My brother encounters stuff like this sometimes. Being British, he was shocked the first time he encountered it. Decades ago, he found that the company he was involved with was setting aside a few million for lawsuits. Not wishing to be involved with anything shady (well, shadier than usual in big business), he asked "What can anyone sue us for?"

"Nothing," came the reply, "but that doesn't stop anyone in the United States. Usually it's cheaper to settle than to fight."

Cheers,

R.

TennesseJones

07-13-2011, 00:15

what nonsense. polar opposite to the miles davis thing.
can't sue people because you inspired them.
apply that to say poetry and you've got a hell of a mess. virgil versus dante?
but there's no money in poetry i guess.

rxmd

07-13-2011, 00:32

Here's another funny story, a news agency claiming copyright to self-portraits taken by a monkey using a camera dropped by a wildlife photographer.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110706/00200314983/monkey-business-can-monkey-license-its-copyrights-to-news-agency.shtml

The self-portraits are actually pretty good:

http://i.imgur.com/l1aYe.jpg

Note that linking to the above picture might constitute infringement of the monkey's copyright in his self-portrait. Or was it the news agency's? Anyway.

jsrockit

07-13-2011, 04:03

Doesn't commercial ad photography copy well known photos all the time? Honestly, I think the work is not similar enough for copyright infringment.

Also, she's a hip-hop artist too and she's sued in that world too...

"Lawsuit against 50 Cent:

In 2005, Jah Jah filed a copyright infringement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement) lawsuit against 50 Cent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent) and Dr. Dre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre) for allegedly stealing her music and using it illegally for 50's Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Massacre) album."

It says nothing of a settlement there.

semordnilap

07-13-2011, 04:38

Here's another funny story, a news agency claiming copyright to self-portraits taken by a monkey using a camera dropped by a wildlife photographer.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110706/00200314983/monkey-business-can-monkey-license-its-copyrights-to-news-agency.shtml

The self-portraits are actually pretty good:

Note that linking to the above picture might constitute infringement of the monkey's copyright in his self-portrait. Or was it the news agency's? Anyway.

Yeah–I was going to throw that into this too. Pretty hilarious all around! It seems that trolls are all around...

rbiemer

07-13-2011, 05:27

When exactly did you take these photos?
After this?:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/632/U632I1214317864.SEQ.0.jpg
We might need to have some discussion about what kind of settlement I'll take....:D
Hey Guys,

Just to let you know I took 10 photos of flowers with Bokeh around them. They're copyright to me yeah. So if anyone else ever takes 10 photos or so that look roughly the same I'm going to sue you.

You have been warned.

Hugs & Kisses,
Ari

Leigh Youdale

07-13-2011, 16:23

If you check out her two Facebook pages you'll find a grand total of between 45 and 55 people "like" her. That doesn't sound like many to me - either as a photographer or a hip-hop DJ.
Maybe she's a little delusional?

enochRoot

07-13-2011, 17:05

Interesting interview. She sounds like a legend in her own mind.

http://www.thabiz.com/mcjahjah.htm

Jamie123

07-16-2011, 11:15

It remains to be seen if Gagosian Gallery will appeal this decision.

The fact remains that artworks are still subject to copyright infringement -- but exactly where the line is drawn seems to be up to each jury, and past rulings. The Prince case did seem to be rather obvious, that it would go against him, not sure what he was thinking. But then you never know how a higher court will rule.

Sure, Gagosian might appeal, though I wouldn't be surprised if they just let it be. They're really not in a strong position.

In any case, like I said, I think in this case it really doesn't matter at all whether the images in question are commercial or art. I think it's neither fair use nor copyright infringement. At most, it can be shown that McGinley might've used her as an inspiration but even that is not evident. Also, as can be seen in the post on APE (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/07/13/can-copyright-be-bad-for-photography/) her case seems to be researched rather poorly as she's even claiming copyright infringement on images that aren't actually by McGinley but of him.