Blogger sued for $7.6M - Why not to use copyrighted images

Paparazzi sues celeb blogger for $7.6M

Now that is an excellent example for people still trying to justify using images without permission. You can definitely be sued, as this example shows. Now, this might be driven somewhat out of proportion but in my opinion they have a pretty good case against the guy. It would be interesting to see the outcome.

Just another reminder why you should ALWAYS ask PERMISSION FIRST, before using any image on your site.

 

I have a feeling this guy is screwed, and he will lose in court.

 

Ridiculous. Hopefully they will rule in favor of the blogger.

 

I agree with you

 

Why is that? He stole images and he is probably more than aware of copyrights.

 

Even if he didn't know what a copyright was, he is still liability for his actions.

 

Another article:

LA Times

Now, having actually checked out the guy's site, I definitely don't think he has a legal leg to stand on. His suppossed "fair use" seems very iffy to me. Basically he just blobbed a few marks on the photo (such as hearts, white spots etc.) and that's suppossedly sataric?

I hope they take him down. I'm all for the right of free speech and the right to comment, but heck copyright holders also have the right to protect and control how their works are used.

 

Yes and I agree 100%.

I had to laugh at his statement:

 

my question is then , and I am ignorant of these kind of things, how can the company claim they have a "right" to the original photo? I am sure they did not ask permission or have the celebrities to sign a waiver to use their photo. And they are profiting from it.

So their reply will be its for a news story and free press and all but....how do you decide what is newsworthy?

so how can this blogger have violated their copyright if they never had the right to use the picture in the first place?

i am just saying.

 

Wow... thats a way to kill someone financially. I hope the blogger wins somehow because even though I know he deserves to lose something, he does not deserve to lose 7 million dollars. Of which he probably does not have.

 

It was bound to happen sooner or latter. I don’t know what to think about it, I guess once an image is on the net there’s really nothing you can do to prevent others from using them. Let’s see where this ends up.

 

Very interesting question. I did a quick Google search and came up with the following:

Now in this case the guy is definitely infringing on the copyright of the photographer. It seems as if the fact that the celebrity didn't give permission for the image to be taken, wouldn't play a role here. Of course the celeb might always then go round and sue the photographer.

At least that's my understanding. In any case, this will be a very interesting case to follow and see how it turns out.

 

The company claims the right to the photo as it was them who had taken it.

The press dont need to ask persmission to take someone's photos, it probably falls under some kind of freedom of press act.

 

It's not ridiculous in the least. What makes you think it is ok to steal the work of others? Got anything of yours I can rob from you?

 

That's not because they are the PRESS. It's because the focus of the photograph was a public figure, as mentioned before. If you are taking a photograph from some unknown person and he is the focus of the photograph (meaning you don't just have him there incidentally because you wanted to get a shot of that nice building) you have to ask them first.
Now if the public figure is on private grounds, you aren't allowed to invade their privacy, even if you are from THE PRESS.

(This comment is based on German laws. Your mileage may vary.)

 

I'm not taking sides here, I see the legal implications and understand the situation fairly well. I just think this is going to boil down to a lot more than just simple law in the eyes of the public. Telling people that satire is reserved for the major media corporations who have millions of bucks to blow on obtaining celebrity photos just won't play well with the public and their ideas of freedom of speech. Every Joe Blogger on the net is going to see this as an attempt to strip them of their rights and limit their ability to criticize and poke fun at celebrities or other public figures, whether justified or not. Usually companies do this to prove a point and make an example out of people, but I have a feeling this is going to backfire for them bigtime.

 

What makes you think its right to completly and totally stalk others and publicise their pictures for the sake of embarracing them?

One is illegal and one isnt. They are both wrong.

 

If he actually wants to help other bloggers, It seems he'd do best to drop the "willing to fight for the rights of all bloggers" motif as it might send a negative message about all bloggers.

Eh. The laws need work, though, don't they.

 

Only Big Fishes Fry other Fishes is what I see everwhere . But making a fuss out of such things is another thing.

 

wow lol 7mil, bit much isnt it.