Old but it's good to know, when to give up Copyright

http://www.petapixel.c​om …o-drop-copyright-lawsuit/

https://www.blogger.co​m/profile/000164614979​51056939

Such an accomplished career, and most people will only know him for one questionable decision. Looks like he was forced to go offline, presumably from all the negative feedback, and Im sure its pretty safe to assume his portrait biz took a hit.

He probably wouldnt like that his name and this whole thing has been brought back up in the internet 3 years later, but thats the world we live in.

2192

What an opportunistic ahole. And he didn't need to give up his copyright. A normal person would have seen his photo used on TV and thought, "That's sad. I'm happy my images will be a permanent part of her family's memory of her."

He got what he deserved as far as I'm concerned.

He is an idiot..... He is not a photographer or a photographer with a brain and ethics of an used car salesman. You are dealing with people. Not everything is about money and the law. I can see having a rare picture of someone famous you may become famous yourself or rich. The subject is just a little girl.

lilkngster wrote in post #17012727
He probably wouldnt like that his name and this whole thing has been brought back up in the internet 3 years later, but thats the world we live in.

2192

And the parents of the girl probably weren't too happy that the douchbag photographer that they had hired in the past was now trying to profit off of their little girls death!

A douchbag is a douchbag is matter how good they are at their craft!

And I thought politicians were low. This one takes the cake.

Opportunistic a-hole. No better than an ambulance chaser. Ugh.

While I feel this is pretty dumb. It is also more than 3 years old. Surely this man regrets his decision, or has been berated enough to compensate for his stupidity.

Surely most photographers would not be this dumb. So, for the sake of discussion, does anyone know where the line is between the extreme of this article and the situation most of us see (someone yanking it off your website for personal/business gain)?

It's more than old, it's stupid. The man is/was a professional photographer. He makes his living selling his photos.

Note that the family had no trouble whatsoever illegally disseminating the photograph, thereby making a "profit" by ripping off the photographer and depriving him of revenue.

Also note that the media had no trouble publishing the photo even though they knew that to do so was illegal! (If they didn't, they're in the wrong business.) Just publish something to which they hold the copyright and see how forgiving they are. And don't lose sight of the fact that all the various media were making money over the death of the child. Lots of money. (They love tragedies! Tragedies sell newspapers and air time!)

The death of the child was an event. A very sad event, but an event nonetheless. Why should the only one to not make a profit from the photo of the child be the man who took the photo and owns the rights thereto?

As for the child-is-dead-so-he-should-not-make-money school of thought, let's put it into perspective. Suppose a child went missing. The child's parents obtain a couple hundred flyers from Kinko's (a copy shop) and post them all over town. Should Kinko's be denied payment for producing the 200 flyers because a missing child is a tragedy? And if so, why? They are in the business of making/printing such things, for whatever purpose. But, on the other had, they are making a profit on a missing child.

20droger, sorry but some things are in such poor taste that you just don't do it. It was also in very poor taste to suddenly rush to copyright the image in hopes of capitalizing off it monetarily, which apparently didn't mean much to him previous. There is a fine line one should walk when it comes to something like this and he failed at staying on the correct side.

As far as your missing child scenario, I would expect to pay the copy place, but I would not expect to have the person who took the picture of my child come after me for even more money than they were already paid, just because I used his/her picture on a "missing person flyer".

Would you go after someone because they used a photo you took of their grandmother to publish in the obituary?

mikeinctown wrote in post #17019066
Would you go after someone because they used a photo you took of their grandmother to publish in the obituary?

Depends on how rich they are and whether or not they are hyper-protective of their own copyrights. The CEO of Disney I would sue. (The Mouse is very litigious.)