Where do they get that figure from?
Blogger Perez Hilton is about as odious to me as his sorta-namesake, Paris, with whom he shares a loud and burning desire to be famous despite having no discernible skills.
That said, nobody deserves what he’s just been handed: a $7.6 million dollar lawsuit for copyright infringement. The plaintiff is photography company X17, who claims through its spokesperson Brandy Navarre that Hilton’s unauthorized use of its photos is costing them money. (Costing you money? As opposed to losing revenue? How do you figure, Brandy? And how did you figure on $7.6 million?)
It’ll be interesting to see how this one shakes out. From a copyright perspective, they’ve probably got him dead to rights, but what they claim they’re really going after, as much as anything, is his arrogance. In that sense, it’s less a defense of intellectual property than the bitch-slapping of exactly the kind of maverick (and some would say wildly irresponsible) blogger that Hilton so perfectly represents. The whole incident is bound to spark some pretty heady discussion in the blogosphere and beyond.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Interesting. I had a recent bout with an ex-photographer-friend-of-mine who I commissioned to take photos for a website I had done. I was an integral part of the shoot (often pulling the shutter release) art directing all the shots. This fellow later tried to sue me because I wasn’t using the photo as it was intended. Sadly, he does have rights to say this (despite the fact that I paid for the film). Though for me the real question was: who does the photo belong to? The guy who pushed the button? Set the aperture? Framed the shot? Owns the camera?
In an effort to avoid further argument, I offered to purchase said photograph (as my client loved the shot and really wanted to use it). This clown’s retort was: “The photograph is not for sale. I don’t want it used in your site design”.
I grabbed my shitty digital point and shoot, returned to the location and retook the photograph. I then opened photoshop and matched the color and depth of field of the original. Long story short - client didnt know the difference and this guy just looked like a jackass.
If only it had been a picture of Paris Hilton’s naughty bits, your photo would be on PerezHilton today!
Finn, if you’re reading this, what’s the answer to Mark’s question?
Everyone with a camera is a photographer now, just like everyone with Photoshop is a Designer.
To answer your question, the photographer ownes the image, and the client buys the rights to use that image through a usage fee (the media, timeline, and actual usage to be agreed upon by both parties through contracts and model/landscape releases), and once that usage time is up, it is then available to be used/sold freely by the photographer (governed by the releases).
Mark: how could the camera’s owner own the image? I take a picture of the Queen’s titties with your camera, and the Bobbies come knocking at your door, are you going to jail?
This friend/photographer sounds like a case. Geez, it’s not as if his name was going to be blazed across the images! Shoot it, bill it, and move on…right?
Finn,
a) the bobbies have been at my house and it was quite confusing
b) I want my camera back
c) I’d like that picture, please. Two 8×10s and a few wallet size.
Thanks Finn. It’s a weird and messy world this photographer thing. I wish as a film / tv editor I had the same rights over the content I assemble. If only he would have sold me the photograph . . . but this jackass wanted profit share of the company I was building the website for!? He was actually convinced that his photo would increase sales. The photograph was a macro-shot of a vintage laundromat dial . . . I can definitely see the the correlation . . .