Do Photographers Have Any Rights?

Posted on 6/12/2020 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (1)

A couple days ago we told you about the sad case of Stephanie Sinclair who had an image used by Mashable after she told them that $50 wasn’t a sufficient payment for permission to use her copyrighted image. After 4 years a judge in the Southern District Court of New York decided in Mashable’s favor saying that if a photographer posts a picture on a “public” Instagram account anyone can use that picture for any purpose whatsoever without permission or compensation.? But now Instagram tells Ars Technica, their TOS doesn't give companies like Mashable the right to make such uses. Which legal opinion is right?

Get the Full Article (2 Credits)

Have an Account?

Access to this site is an exclusive benefit for you. Enter your username and password in the form above. If you don't remember your password you can reset it at any time.

Keep me logged in

Forgot your password?

New to Selling Stock?

Selling Stock is an on-line newsletter that reports on developing trends in the stock photo industry. It is updated at least twice a month. On-line subscribers receive e-mail notification whenever new stories are posted. Archives containing stories going back to late 1995 are fully available to subscribers.

Buy Credits

Copyright © 2020 Jim Pickerell. 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 301-461-7627, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Comments

Penny Gentieu Posted Jun 13, 2020
When did you tell us about the “sad” case of Stephanie Sinclair? The facts are that her case was in court two years (not four years as you reported) and that a Motion to Dismiss sat on the judge’s desk for two years before that judge retired and the new judge, immediately dismissed the case with no discovery, no jury trial, and no evidence of a license. The case is being reconsidered. Meanwhile, a case just like it won — McGucken v Newsweek — that I see you didn’t report on it last week but instead had two articles by Nancy Wolff — is that because she is the lawyer for Newsweek? Sinclair’s case is not sad because Instagram came out and said they do not give third parties a copyright license with their embedding tool. Bravo! It’s a big win! Too bad for Nancy Wolff who is a real hypocrite for saying to PDN in 2007 that just because photos “illustrate something newsworthy doesn’t mean it’s fair use, otherwise Time would never pay for pictures,” and now argues for just that as Newsweek’s lawyer! She lost on the “fair use” argument of Newsweek’s defense, too.

Post Comment