AP sues over use of image

[AB22 Easy Tiger]

The Associated Press has sued several retailers including Urban Outfitters for the unauthorised use of the Hope image created by artist Shepard Fairey.

Artist Fairey used an AP photo without permission to create the image, and was sued by the news agency for violating copyright. That case was settled.

AP argues that using the image on T-shirts is wilful and blatant violation of the copyright of the photo.

A spokesman said that using photos for free devalued the work of journalists.

The news agency filed lawsuits against Urban Outfitters, Nordstrom and Zumiez seeking unspecified damages.

A Nordstrom spokeswoman said in a statement that the firm was aware of the lawsuit. Representatives of the other retailers have yet to respond, AP said.

In a statement, AP spokesman Paul Colford said: "When a commercial entity such as these retailers, or the company that sold the shirts to them, gets something for nothing by using an AP photo without credit or compensation, it undermines the AP's ability to cover the news.

"It devalues the work that our journalists do, often in dangerous locations where they may literally risk life and limb to cover a story."


Street artist Fairey used the photo, taken by Mannie Garcia in 2006, when he created his Hope artwork during Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Fairey sued AP in 2009, seeking a declaration he had not violated its copyright with his iconic image.

AP then counter-sued, saying he had done so through his uncredited and uncompensated use of its picture.

The deal agreed in January called for both sides to work together with the image and share future rights to merchandise based on it.

As part of the deal, Fairey agreed not to use another AP photo in his work without first obtaining a licence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12720159

Good on them, I say.

[ThankHeavenForShed 7]

If someone took one of my images and used it, without consent, for financial gain then I'd be expecting some kind of compensation.

[peachbum]

Originally Posted by ThankHeavenForShed 7

If someone took one of my images and used it, without consent, for financial gain then I'd be expecting some kind of compensation.

Just as a devil's advocat - that particular picture (type) would be widely available. It's a fairly common picture of the most well known man in the world (probably). If it was a more unusual or hard to obtain picture then I'd agree. But not that particular picture.

[ThankHeavenForShed 7]

Originally Posted by peachbum

Just as a devil's advocat - that particular picture (type) would be widely available. It's a fairly common picture of the most well known man in the world (probably). If it was a more unusual or hard to obtain picture then I'd agree. But not that particular picture.

It was still the work of an individual/organisation which holds the rights to the image. Just because it's easy to obtain a copy of the picture doesn't mean you should legally be able to make money from it. Beatles albums are widely available and recognisable but I would (rightly) find myself in all sorts of bother if I re-packaged them and sold them for financial gain.

[peachbum]

Originally Posted by ThankHeavenForShed 7

It was still the work of an individual/organisation which holds the rights to the image. Just because it's easy to obtain a copy of the picture doesn't mean you should legally be able to make money from it.

You wouldn't be allowed to do it with a song or a film so why should you be able to do it with a photo?

I know, I'm not going to argue. I was just trying to say, not very effectively that there are hundreds, if not thousands of photos of BO's face, that you would have thought it was OK to use. But he should have been able to negotiate a very low price to use that photograph, as it isn't particularly outstanding. I like the picture he created for the portrait gallery and for the fact he has a famous work of art he should probably have acknowledged the original photographer anyway as a gesture (ignoring the legalities).

[walter mitty]

Originally Posted by peachbum

I know, I'm not going to argue. I was just trying to say, not very effectively that there are hundreds, if not thousands of photos of BO's face, that you would have thought it was OK to use. But he should have been able to negotiate a very low price to use that photograph, as it isn't particularly outstanding. I like the picture he created for the portrait gallery and for the fact he has a famous work of art he should probably have acknowledged the original photographer anyway as a gesture (ignoring the legalities).

what a wonderful world you must live in

[peachbum]

Originally Posted by walter mitty

what a wonderful world you must live in

Huh?

[godfrey]

Originally Posted by ThankHeavenForShed 7

If someone took one of my images and used it, without consent, for financial gain then I'd be expecting some kind of compensation.

If someone took one of my images and used it, without consent, for financial gain I'd be very surprised ...and expecting some kind of compensation.