Interesting story on photographer's copyright

[rtphokie]

We've all seen the photo of Christina Taylor Green, the little girl shot in Arizona recently. Turns out that this photo was a portrait, taken by a professional photographer. He's suing the media outlets that used it without his permission and planned to give the proceeds to charity. Now the charity is very publicly saying that they wont take it.

The comments on the story below are interesting. Most are seeing the photographer as the one in the wrong. Seeing him as trying to make a buck off the tragedy. Something to remember when buying photos from a studio, cruise line or via photopass. The photographer owns that photo until you get a release form stating otherwise.

http://www.kgun9.com/global/story.asp?s=14010688

 

[mom2rtk]

You know, I thought it looked like a crop from a portrait when I saw it in the news and I wondered about that issue.

For the photographer to say a SINGLE WORD in light of the tragedy I find to be pathetic. For anyone to involve that family in one more moment of stress is just sad.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

As unpopular as it may be with some people I really respect, I have to say I agree with some of the comments. The guy is trying to be paid for something he was already paid a price that he had agreed to. I know the law is the law but sometimes it's best to sit back and keep to yourself. The photographer is putting the family through something more than they need to be part of right now.

I think the photographer is a sleaz and is trying to profit from the family's grief. I mean seriously, if you were really trying to do some good by giving the money to a charity and that charity turns it down, wouldn't that tell you that you might be crossing the line morally?

Sounds like career suicide to me.

 

[ukcatfan]

As a business, I think he dealt himself a death blow. Who in the world would dream of giving this guy money if they have heard this story.

 

[saturndb]

As a business, I think he dealt himself a death blow. Who in the world would dream of giving this guy money if they have heard this story.

Well said

 

[photo_chick]

While I do understand the photographer's point, and if this were under different circumstances I can totally see pursuing his rights if he has a case, in this instance considering why the image was used it's just wrong IMO.

The attorney, Ed Greenberg... isn't that the same guy Scott Kelby had a couple years ago talking about copyright stuff?

 

[MICKEY88]

Goldman told KGUN9 that he feels media use of the photo under the circumstances is probably defensible under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, which allow news media to use copyrighted photographs under certain circumstances

as this story grows, his odds of collecting any money decrease, the larger news agencies, are probably already lining up their legal teams, preparing to fight on the grounds of fair use..

if he decided to sue because his business is slow, he will probably notice it gets even slower now

 

[mrcricket]

As I told a professional photographer friend of mine once, "just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do."
Anyone remember Disney suing the daycare center for painting pics of their characters on the walls of the daycare? Disney had the right, but it backfired on them big with major negative PR.

 

[Shutterbug]

As I told a professional photographer friend of mine once, "just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do."
Anyone remember Disney suing the daycare center for painting pics of their characters on the walls of the daycare? Disney had the right, but it backfired on them big with major negative PR.

may have gave them negative PR but it didnt effect their profits..people still bought disney stuff and went to disney parks

 

[MICKEY88]

As I told a professional photographer friend of mine once, "just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do."
Anyone remember Disney suing the daycare center for painting pics of their characters on the walls of the daycare? Disney had the right, but it backfired on them big with major negative PR.

the thing with Disney doing that, is , if they don't protect their trademark in all cases, it weakens their case on bigger issues

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

While I do understand the photographer's point, and if this were under different circumstances I can totally see pursuing his rights if he has a case, in this instance considering why the image was used it's just wrong IMO.

The attorney, Ed Greenberg... isn't that the same guy Scott Kelby had a couple years ago talking about copyright stuff?

A quick google search reveals you are correct. It is the guy Kelby interviewed a couple of years ago.

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1645

 

[wideeyedwonder]

Something to remember when buying photos from a studio, cruise line or via photopass. The photographer owns that photo until you get a release form stating otherwise.

Interestingly enough, Disney Cruise Line gives you the release for your portrait photos taken on board if you buy the photo CD (which includes all of your party's photos that were taken by the Disney photographers).

 

[Experiment_626]

Interestingly enough, Disney Cruise Line gives you the release for your portrait photos taken on board if you buy the photo CD (which includes all of your party's photos that were taken by the Disney photographers).

It's a release that grants you a license -- it doesn't confer copyright to you.

Scott

 

[rtphokie]

Interestingly enough, Disney Cruise Line gives you the release for your portrait photos taken on board if you buy the photo CD (which includes all of your party's photos that were taken by the Disney photographers).

Most cruise lines do. The forms are downloadable from some of their websites.