Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Greenberg Appeal in National Geographic Case

Posted on 12/11/2008 by Julia Dudnik Stern | Printable Version | Comments (4)

An 11-year saga of Greenberg v. National Geographic has concluded with the Supreme Court refusing to hear photographer Jerry Greenberg’s latest appeal. The two rulings that now set the legal precedent for reproducing copyrighted freelancer content will be the July 2008 decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and an earlier Supreme Court decision in Tasini v. The New York Times.

At the core of both decisions is whether or not the reuse of a previously commissioned freelancer-produced work—be it an image or a textual product—is whether or not the original work is reproduced in the same or different context.

“The Complete National Geographic: 108 Years of National Geographic Magazine,” a CD compilation that included 1,200 past issues of National Geographic, reproduced over 60 Greenberg’s photographs. The Florida court of appeals viewed it as the equivalent of a reprint, since the images were presented in their original context, exactly as they first appeared in the print magazine—and for which Greenberg has been paid. In the Tasini case, where the Supreme Court sided with freelancers, The New York Times took print articles and republished them online, making them available outside of their original context. (This previous Selling Stock article has further details.)

Though the Greenberg battle may be over, the legal decisions have not been unanimous. The National Geographic Society finally won by a narrow margin of 7 to 5 votes, and two dissenting opinions were published. Chief among the judges’ objections was the notion of fairness: if a publisher is earning new revenue from a product that uses a freelancer’s work, the freelancer should share in the proceeds irrespective of the work’s context.

Still, this opinion remains in the minority and has no legal standing. Photographers’ only remaining option is to negotiate all potential future uses at the time of commission and to put the results of such negotiations into non-ambiguously worded contracts.


Copyright © 2008 Julia Dudnik Stern. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-251-0720, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Comments

  • Fred Voetsch Posted Dec 11, 2008
    This certainly will not make me more popular in the industry but I agree with the ruling. Simply changing from print to elctronic media does not constitute a different context, IMO.

  • Rio Helmi Posted Dec 11, 2008
    Fred, I (along with probably a host of others) beg to differ. It is a very different context. The publisher is profiting in one way or another, plus the cost to the publisher is negligible to put something online (compared to print). However the grim reality is that most contracts/deals done more than a decade ago had no provision for electronic use so it falls into a gray area which is exploited. I've had similar cases (albeit on a much smaller scale) which I haven't even bothered to contest. But what I do now is include something about electronic media in the clause about usage, whether allowing it or disallowing it. That way both publisher/client and photog are clear.

  • Fred Voetsch Posted Dec 15, 2008
    Being objective will never win me a whole lot of friends in any industry but if we are going to sell a license to anyone for use in a magazine and then sue them for more money when they have the gaul to dislay that magazine in a manner we did not specify (what if they make a poster to advertise the magazine or run a TV or print ad?) then we deserve what we get when RF comes along and undercuts us.

    Greed is greed whether it is displayed by Wall Street fat cats, corporate CEO's or stock photographers. The court is objective and they agree with me so I guess that makes me right. That the photographer sued I don't have a problem with; that the court ruled and that photographers now complain about how the system is against them shows the lack of objectivity. Reminds me of the clueless on Judge Judy when she dresses them down; they are so sure that they were justified in their actions that they can never accept that they cheated, lied or stole.

    I always look for facts rather than emotion and self-interest and I see no objective arguement or facts in this case that justify being upset over the verdict...only greed.

  • Rio Helmi Posted Dec 15, 2008
    Fred, you're not being objective, you are siding with the defendant and the courts. Thats all. It wasn't an ad, it was a compilation and it was sold as such. NG made 70 million plus dollars on that compilation. That's an objective truth.

    Where's the greed?

Post Comment

You must log in to post comments.

Stay Connected

Sign up to receive our FREE weekly email listing new stories posted.

Follow Us

Free Stuff

Stock Photo Pricing: The Future
In the last two years I have written a lot about stock photo pricing and its downward slide. If you have time over the holidays you may want to review some of these stories as you plan your strategy ...
Read More
Future Of Stock Photography
If you’re a photographer that counts on the licensing of stock images to provide a portion of your annual income the following are a few stories you should read. In the past decade stock photography ...
Read More
Blockchain Stories
The opening session at this year’s CEPIC Congress in Berlin on May 30, 2018 is entitled “Can Blockchain be applied to the Photo Industry?” For those who would like to know more about the existing blo...
Read More
2017 Stories Worth Reviewing
The following are links to some 2017 and early 2018 stories that might be worth reviewing as we move into the new year.
Read More
Stories Related To Stock Photo Pricing
The following are links to stories that deal with stock photo pricing trends. Probably the biggest problem the industry has faced in recent years has been the steady decline in prices for the use of ...
Read More
Stock Photo Prices: The Future
This story is FREE. Feel free to pass it along to anyone interested in licensing their work as stock photography. On October 23rd at the DMLA 2017 Conference in New York there will be a panel discuss...
Read More
Important Stock Photo Industry Issues
Here are links to recent stories that deal with three major issues for the stock photo industry – Revenue Growth Potential, Setting Bottom Line On Pricing and Future Production Sources.
Read More
Recent Stories – Summer 2016
If you’ve been shooting all summer and haven’t had time to keep up with your reading here are links to a few stories you might want to check out as we move into the fall. To begin, be sure to complet...
Read More
Corbis Acquisition by VCG/Getty Images
This story provides links to several stories that relate to the Visual China Group (VCG) acquisition of Corbis and the role Getty Images has been assigned in the transfer of Corbis assets to the Gett...
Read More
Finding The Right Image
Many think search will be solved with better Metadata. While metadata is important, there are limits to how far it can take the customer toward finding the right piece of content. This story provides...
Read More

More from Free Stuff