NYC photographer suing over image use

http://www.1010wins.co​m …ducers-over-Image/7790297

Well it's not a lengthy report but you would think that the producers would know better!

"Their spokesman says they've tried but weren't able to resolve the dispute" Hah! - don't use others images without permission then there's no 'dispute'.

The latest - week's - gross from the Broadway production shows that the show took in $574,485, so $150,000 for copyright infringement seems light.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it next to impossible to actually recover money from an image that's been used without permission? From what I gather she would have to show that the use of this image has somehow harmed her or that the producers would have likely paid her $150k to use the image had they not just taken it.

This is of course in contrast to torrenting an mp3 where you can fined $250k through scant evidence.

If she has registered her image with the copyright office she can ask for UP TO 150K in statutory damages as well as attorney fees. She doesn't have to prove any damages at all, she just has to prove they used her photo without permission. If she had a watermark on her image and they removed it to use it then there may also be an additional penalty.

mensur wrote in post #10619004
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it next to impossible to actually recover money from an image that's been used without permission? From what I gather she would have to show that the use of this image has somehow harmed her or that the producers would have likely paid her $150k to use the image had they not just taken it.

This is of course in contrast to torrenting an mp3 where you can fined $250k through scant evidence.

If they made money by using her image then she can win this suit. The image was used as part of the marketing, the image was used to bring in revenue. Obviously the image was better than any other they had or they would have used another one. It will come down to copyright of the image. Illegal use of an image or logo or business name is usually a case that one can win.

thebishopp wrote in post #10619058
If she has registered her image with the copyright office

Ah, I suppose that's what makes all the difference. Read so many posts on here of "My images was used for X without my permission" and the replies usually come down to "Sorry bud, you're out of luck."

Hopefully she wins because, well, Jay-Z and Will Smith has enough money as is.

mensur wrote in post #10619212
Ah, I suppose that's what makes all the difference. Read so many posts on here of "My images was used for X without my permission" and the replies usually come down to "Sorry bud, you're out of luck."

You are not necessarily out of luck, but if you have registered the image with the copyright office you have a better chance of getting a lawyer to handle your case and get you a substantial settlement. If your images are not registered "Before" the unauthorized use you are probably best to just submit a cease and desist letter. Recovery of costs/profits associated are possible but it is far more difficult and not easy to get representation.

Well "registering" with the Copyright Office is better than not, but her EXIF info (assuming that is there) will give the 'creation date'.

Apart from the legalese which the CO gives (I'm from the UK, we don't have "registering") as soon as you 'create' (anything) in any 'tangible form' (her picture) it is your copyright, whether you "register" it or not (in both the US and the UK). Btw, nobody should accept that "Sorry bud, you're out of luck" hoo hah.

I should imagine that this is $150K plus costs (NY lawyer v Broadway show = high). Richard Kornberg, the publicist for the musical, has said, "We tried to resolve the claim, but could not, and are now in the process of replacing the image . . . Unfortunately this photographer waited two years to voice an objection to our use of this image. Had she notified us earlier, we would’ve replaced it then." So, it's been used - without permission - for at least two years! (and Kornberg is being 'coy' - it is not up to the photographer to check whether her images are being used, it is up to the producers to get advance clearances).

mensur's "but isn't it next to impossible to actually recover money from an image that's been used without permission?" ... only from the dead . I know you can sue a potted plant, but "next to impossible" from a successful Broadway show's producers, no. It is your copyright as soon as you press the shutter - iow if people want to use it they have to pay for that use (could've been a dollar! - who knows?).

One to watch.

david69 wrote in post #10619508
Well "registering" with the Copyright Office is better than not, but her EXIF info (assuming that is there) will give the 'creation date'.

That's true, but it is also easily modified. I wouldn't depend on that.

zagiace wrote in post #10619543
That's true, but it is also easily modified. I wouldn't depend on that.

It is?? Oops (didn't actually know that).

Jay-Z was just sampling her image. It's a rap thing...

david69 wrote in post #10619508
Apart from the legalese which the CO gives (I'm from the UK, we don't have "registering") as soon as you 'create' (anything) in any 'tangible form' (her picture) it is your copyright, whether you "register" it or not (in both the US and the UK.

Um, you own the image here (U.S.) as well, as soon as you take the pic...registering with the copyright right office just gives you more leverage in a copyright dispute as well as the ability to recover much more in monetary compensation than would be possible without it. (i.e. "statutory damages" and "legal costs and attorneys' fees" from a copyright infringer) in other words, the odds of getting an attorney to represent you just went WAY up...

The image doesn't have to be copyrighted. She has the original image, which is likely different from the finish concept they are using. Knowing hollywood I doubt they even changed the image. But it's hard to prove if they have made changes to her copy.

Her chances of winning are slim and none. Even when Hollywood steals a script and are found guilty is seldom costs them a dime.

What she gets from this is her name thrown around and associated with photograhy and may lead somewhere.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sometimes suing is a 50/50 shot but I think she'll be successful here. Playbill has: "The photo of Fela Anikulapo-Kuti's Nigerian nightclub — which was published in the 2003 tome "Black President: The Art and Legacy of Fela Anikulapo Kuti" — is also featured in the musical's souvenir program as well as in the CD booklet and promotional music video." So it was not just used for a projected backdrop for the Fela! set it was also used in a souvenir programme; in the CD booklet and - good grief - a promotional music video too! What were the producers thinking? - $150K is pretty light!

I Googled her - have a look at http://www.marilynnanc​e.com/soulsista/cv2.ht​ml and http://www.loc.gov …nt/video/nance/​nance.html (some pedigree!)