Big Plus One for Photographer

This is a discussion on Big Plus One for Photographer within the Photography News and Views forums, part of the PHOTO FORUM category; Here's a big plus one in the win column for photographers... If I read it correctly, it looks like if you post a photo to ...

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Eatontown, NJ
    Here's a big plus one in the win column for photographers... If I read it correctly, it looks like if you post a photo to Facebook, Twitter, etc., you're still protected!

    I can't wait to see the results of this one as it looks like the photographer will take it to court and go for the jugular. Good for him. If it goes to court, there's a good chance we'll actually see the results rather than a "secret" settlement out of court.

    This guy could get millions!

    Good. News and stock agencies shouldn't be able to use social networking sites as a source of free photographs. And photographers shouldn't be afraid to let the world see their photographs and worry about them being published without their permission and without compensation.


    Check out my blog! ---

  • #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    SW WI

    About time!
    *I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. ~Frank Lloyd Wright, quoted, 14 August 1966*

    Assorted cameras.
    Nikon D40
    Olympus E-420

    My Flickr

    Mulewings~My Blog

  • #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Minnesota, USA
    Good for him!

    The Black Dog's Photographer
    Minolta Maxxum 7D
    Fuji FinePix S7000
    Minolta x-700
    Zeiss Ikon Contaflex Super B
    Seneca Folding Scout
    Holga 120N
    Polariod One Step

  • #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDog's View Post
    Good for him!
    Hi,thanks for sharing the information here.Really a good discussion is presented here.

  • #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Fayetteville, AR; USA
    The case will result in statutory damages at a minimum but will be precedent setting in the use of terms of use as legal agreements. Photos posted to most network sites agree that anyone can download the photos for viewing and the "Plaintiffs" stretched that to mean a license. The license claim was rejected but amazement is the violators sued the photographer for reporting the violation and asking for a ruling that they did not violate copyright.

    They are in for no less than $1,950,000 statutory award. The violations were intentional for many publications of the 13 photos. They might be liable for a punitive award. I read the ruling and now would be a good time to consider the fact that punitive damages can be almost company killers.

    I was offered 5 million by Google Inc personnel via blocked caller ID. A JURY will consider my case in July. In the Southern District of New York, where this case is at, Google Inc is attempting to establish new copyrite law by class action after scanning millions of books from libraries and digitally republishing them. This s not the same judge. Photographers can rejoice that at least one NY judge appears to support .

    The ASMP class action there is likely to notice this case as he was assigned to ASMP as a possibly related case to the book case? The Internet is about to be altered permanently by my litigation and others like we see in this case. Tick,Tock - Tick,Tock, Tick,Tock

    The following cases will rewrite the Internet completely as well as US Title 17.
    The case numbers below are linked to their pages.

    Agence France Presse V. Morel, (1:10-cv-02730-WHP)
    The Author's Guild et al v. Google Inc., (1:2005cv08136-DC)
    The American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. et al v. Google, Inc., (1:2010cv02977)
    Neeley v. NameMedia, Inc. et al, (5:09-cv-05151)
    Neeley v. NameMedia, Inc. et al, (5:09-cv-05151) ....Docket mirror published free instead. The docket in mine is much smaller than the books case but much bigger than any of the rest.

    Copyrights have only existed since 1990 in the United States since passage of the VARA or visual artists Rights act, although claimed to exist for two hundred years. There have been only nine cases that addressed moral rights in those twenty years and only one of those above do thus far. The ASMP case has three of my photos in it now in the et al. Now would be a good time to dump GOOG stock.


    Remove Ads

    Sponsored Links

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts