New wrinkle on copyright laws re: photography

See https://fstoppers.com …ributed-it-smiling-384576

Ridiculous. What next? "I contributed to the photo by existing"? "The tree contributed to the photo by growing leaves"?

Undoubtedly will be thrown out.

It is so ridiculous that I didn’t waste my time reading it. There is no way in hell that that argument stands up in court. At least that monkey actually pushed the shutter release and look how that ended up.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #18885073
Ridiculous. What next? "I contributed to the photo by existing"? "The tree contributed to the photo by growing leaves"?

Undoubtedly will be thrown out.

Not before fstoppers collects hundreds of thousands of clicks!!!

Exactly. The internet is full of this obviously stupid claims - and it is hard for me identify if they are real or not.
https://www.dailykos.c​om …ng-and-The-Aunt-From-Hell

The other example I know personally is a picture of a sign "To our Jewish guests, women, men and children, please take a shower before you go swimming,” that caused a big stink in the social media. The truth behind the sign was that the owner of this tiny-one-woman-show apartment house was catering explicitly to orthodox jews. The sign was not the most sensitive communication with her guests - but she certainly also didn't deserve the almighty wrath of the global internet community.

Much gets blown out of proportion.

Social media allows people to be nosy where they shouldn't be, and post outrageous messages where they wouldn't have the courage to do it in person in front of a large group. Most uproars on the internet are engineered, media sources and clickbased revenue sites instill these things and this way to behave to increase revenue. Greed and self-interest drives most diversity on the web.

Update, they got the case thrown out because "the photographer failed to submit the image for copyright" - that's gotta be a joke.

https://fstoppers.com …case-heres-how-her-392762

ThatTorontoStudio wrote in post #18980831
Update, they got the case thrown out because "the photographer failed to submit the image for copyright" - that's gotta be a joke.

https://fstoppers.com …case-heres-how-her-392762

So the matter of copyright violation hasn't been decided, since the photographer will certainly get the necessary approval of their copyright application. This just gives her lawyer a chance to blow his own horn.

Exactly, her lawyer knows there is a high probability that she will lose once the Copyright Certificate is received. It may be time for them to settle before the photographer has an opportunity to pursue the maximum penalty. The last time I read the LOC website, it was $250K per occurrence.

ThatTorontoStudio wrote in post #18980831
Update, they got the case thrown out because "the photographer failed to submit the image for copyright" - that's gotta be a joke.

https://fstoppers.com …case-heres-how-her-392762

Yes, that's an issue of timing and an incompetent lawyer who didn't know diddly about IP law. It's only a matter of waiting until the paperwork clears before filing suit.