Lawsuit claims Apple's dual-camera yngve gambling in recent iPhones infringes on patent Oct 11, Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. McCabe also confirms there were discussions about secretly recording the president's words.
OK nachos how does it work? Photographers start suing large companies for astronomical amounts that are absolutely ridiculous trying to get a big pay out so large companies see this and say hey, lets hire even more photographers and use more photos we don't have the rights too? Good try though. What in the world does this even mean? You want billion dollar megacorps to screw their contractors? It's very clear you are not in this business.
They would own the copyrights and save a fortune in licensing fees, especially if they end up losing millions because they could not adequately track each individual image license. Freelancers are considered, used, and often interchanged for campaign work. They may be part of a pitch from an ad agency. Depends if PG has in house agency, or outsource. Most probably both.
Sometimes an in house agency will produce adworks and campaigns for different companies, just like a private agency would. Anheuser Busch in house agency used to produce campaigns for Volkswagen Back in the day. I was just curious.
I've done one paid corporate shoot only, and after the client was satisfied with the images I sold them the copyrights for an extra charge. I got more money in my pocket, they now own the copyrights to photos I wouldn't use for anything else anyway , and neither of us ever have to think about it again.
Buying the copyright for images of this kind would be very expensive. Shoots are given a budget and their budget apparently allowed only USA use. In house photography is typically for catalog and some collateral work. Ad agencies often don't use in house photographers because they're either already busy or don't have the right aesthetic they're going for. Photo copyrights can be bought, sold, inherited, traded, gifted, and perhaps even used for financial collateral.
That sounds to me like a commodity. No, I wasn't suggesting that photographers should be openly traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. I wondered why the large company couldn't buy the copyrights. Copyrights are bought and sold every day. I've even done it. I also wondered why the company couldn't hire an in-house photographer.
I've done that too. Neither situation would be unique or novel. So although Clyde Thomas answered the questions to my satisfaction, maybe you do need to expand on your "commodities" comment. It's simple. Photographers are not interchangeable. One in-house photographer cannot produce the range of work that access to many freelancers provides.
A large company may need a wider variety of ideas, styles, skills, and experience than a single in-house photographer can provide. That is why agencies and photo buyers are constantly shopping for new talent. It's very common to have both in house and outside photographers doing ad work. For one thing, many photographers don't want to work in house but may have a good existing relationship with the company and its agencies.
No problem, buy you a pint at the pub sometime. At the low-budget company where I work, they resort to using photos I take. Mostly because no one else owns a camera. There is a lot of weird complaining and speculative assumptions here. Plus people who relish displaying their ignorance in public. What we don't know is what was written in that contract Presumably the images were registered with the copyright office in a timely manner. For instance it is common for a license to say that usage is only granted upon payment in full.
Otherwise it might just be a contract dispute and not a copyright issue at all. There is no "or". When are we going to realize only the lawyers win, and everybody else loses, in one way or another? When the culprit pays and the victim gets nothing. Fortunately, this doesn't happen, so I have no idea why you're trying to discourage photographers from suing for damages.
You're right. And the lawyers had nothing to do with it. Wow, cough cough, that 75 mill is waaaay to small, she can only buy small 20acre house in beverly hills, and only few horses, maybe few dogs, and free meal for the rest of her life, and left with no saving, too small way too small. That Lie-yer will be laughing all the way to the bank, but 75 mil sounds way off base. For too long big corporate giants would destroy any small player or individual for ANY of the smallest mistakes.
Now, we the public have learned to play their game. Who is at fault? Sitting back and watching lives being destroyed over the silliest of things. Why is a big company being sued for violating the terms of its agreement with a photographer a breakdown of the legal system? That's what the civil courts are for: Would you rather go back to the old system in which the wronged party would kill the man who broke the promise, plunder his house, and sell the wife and children into slavery?
The legal system may not be perfect, but it's better than the alternative. I wonder if this sort of thing has a negative affect on big corporations employing freelance workers. Just something to think about. So the attorneys want to go for the max. Absolutely crazy attorney stuff-she should be paid fairly and maybe given a little additional for her trouble, etc.
Let us have some reason here. I agree. In a fair world, she should be paid the duration that herphotographs were used extra beyond the contract date, plus maybe a small fine plus the cost of goi g through the courts and the lawyers and time off work etc. That's just a number an expert working for her lawyer threw out there. Then they used them in world wide advertising campaigns for several more years.
Now they won't come clean about how extensive the actual usage is. And you can bet this isn't the only time they did this - they probably save huge loads of cash by getting a short license and then misusing and not removing the pics on time or maybe at all.
At this point it's not a simple mistake; if they are able to show a deliberate attempt to circumvent contracts it's going to very expensive for them. It's the kind of thing executives lose their jobs over. Lets hope the photographer prevails, since she did not want to settle, she wants to fry bigger fish. Find out who is in charge of the asset management.
Fire them, and make sure they never get another job. Make their family suffer for the deliberate attempt to save money. Do the same for that persons boss and then that persons boss and then find an executive as a scapegoat. Life is unfair, don't try to cheat especially a photographer. You will have hell to pay and your kids can be eating bread and water after you paid all your legal bills.
Punitive damages are intended to make the cost of misbehavior high enough to deter would-be abusers. Think about it: It's the height of stupidity and arrogance for a large company to use a photographer's images without permission. Its legal department should be monitoring its contracts to prevent this kind of thing. The modeling agencies have since been paid.
Good for her. Some companies we work with - one major beer brewer comes to mind - have entire departments dedicated to making sure they are within their licensing rights due to the potential liability of a misuse. Art asset management is a must. Give me a break, Pls. DPR composed a poor headline.
The photographer is not suing for that much money. DPR should rewrite the headline so it is a more accurate representation of the case. Read the source article at http: It is common in lawsuits of this nature to ask the maximum possible, knowing that it will be less. The 75 Million is probably an estimate based upon a single use license for global use.
Actual damages are certain to be negotiated way down. But they idea is ask for the worst possible scenario in damages and then negotiate. If she can show reasonable cause for declaring the 75 Million, then it gives here lots of bargain room. A judge can declare the amount excessive if there is evidence to indicate that. It's a contract negotiation taking place in court. The chance is good that either way she will get a good paycheck, but probably not 75 million. It might make sense if you'd learn about "punitive damages" and the function they serve.
Your suggestion essentially gives the rich a license to break any law they want for a cost they won't even feel. They used the pictures abroad, so they violated the contract. LOL, why not 75,,,,,,,,,, in damages? You know, photographs are SO valuable! It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some photographers are when it comes to the actual value of our images in the business world.
Images used in an international ad campaign are potentially worth millions to a company wishing to establish a presence or launch a new product. That's why companies like Proctor and Gamble hire top ad agencies and photographers, and then spend millions of dollars placing advertising to reach the buying public. The return on investment can be considerable. Of course, most photographers do not work in the rarified world of high-end advertising.
But even a portrait deemed to be unremarkable can suddenly increase in value if the subject becomes famous. Or an image made for one client for which the photographer retains the copyright may also have value in other venues. That's why it is wise to take advantage of cheap bulk copyright registration to be able to protect the earning potential of our photographs.
Because - just as every other time DPR has covered a story like this - copyright law in the US, amongst many other places, defines the theoretical maximum amount of damages that can be awarded as a set value multiplied by the number of infringements.
It's a simple sum codified in law, not some random number plucked out of the air by the photographer or their lawyers. Yes, it's silly money, but it's not just intended to be the value of the photographs but also punitive damages against the infringer. That doesn't mean that the photographer will get that much money though as even if it goes all the way through trial, the actual award would be up to the judge.
They're not selling high art, they're selling diapers. No damages. Good luck wit dat. Huge U. Jane Doe? In the world of U. If the copyright infringement can be established as being willful and the contracts did not allow such use, it is unlikely that this case will even reach a courtroom.
The company will settle the case because the potential for losing a large amount of money is too great. That's one of the positive aspects of having punitive damages. The corporations lose or they settle. Juries hate corps and nuisance cases against them are so numerous its just the cost of doing business to settle.
Comments like these show the love of conspiracy theory in the world. Mega Corporation. They will even agree to cut their share of the take if the case is a slam dunk. Says the Russian troll trying to convince Americans all their institutions are worthless. Nice try, but no cigar. I'll take rule of law over victory to the richest any day. This is the truth. Had this happen with a local news paper.
Turned out it was the doing of my now former best friend who gave them permission without speaking with me first. Lot's of people think photography has no value. They are idiots, but that's what they think. Will surely be reduced by a judge, Navarro is just making a statement, and a shot across their bow. Hopefully this will all come out during the discovery process. Will she and her team get the full amount they are suing for? Possibly not but if you do not ask you do not get.
Legal system in America is quite bad. Lawyers must be the happiest social class in US How do any of us know if it is outrageous or modest? They might argue that that the ads they used the photos in did not generate any additional revenue. Clausewitz I think it was Clausewitz, but I could be wrong wrote that "war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" and he was right.
Substitute "lawsuit" for "war" and "negotiations" for "diplomacy" and you'll understand what's going on. The company knows that the public won't know nor particularly care. Advertising images can be extremely valuable when used in international advertising. The photographer likely suffered a sizable loss.
Punitive damages exist to hopefully deter potential infringers and to punish them when they get caught. Suing for copyright infringement can be a lengthy and costly process. Most photographers would never get their day in court if weren't for lawyers willing to take their cases on a contingency basis. EllisVener, " OK, I get it: But claiming such outrageous amounts makes the photographer look more predatory than the big bad corporation.
Gediminas 8: I suspect this suit came about only after other means of negotiating a fair settlement failed. Dpreview's headline writer misstated the case by a lot and we all believed the headline it. I know it's a fool's errand but I suggest everyone read the origianl article to the fuller story: She had negotiated a fair price before, and they have allegedly circumvented that.
She is not going for fair, as they did not go for fair. She is going for punative, and good on her. Plus, going against a company that large, I am sure she will have high legal bills that will need to be covered as well. If there were not punative damages available, then what is to stop IP theft?
Without punative damages, it would be use them, and we might get away with it. Worst case, we will have to pay the same we would have up front. Even with modest punative damages, they numbers game would mean they would likely win more than they lost, so it still doesn't stop them. Once this becomes the norm, then IP rights are worthless, and it is not long before innovation ceases. Gediminas 8 The photographer doesn't look predatory to me. You have decided that the lawsuit is asking for too much in damages before we even know the details.
The amount she is suing for wasn't drawn out of a hat. Asking for an outrageous unsubstantiated amount would only make the lawyer look incompetent. The amount is determined by the actual damages, potential profits and the statutory damages. Statutory damages are based on whether the infringement is willful and the financial worth of the infringer.
Ellis, thanks for the link. I didn't think to check the veracity of the DPReview headline. It should be changed ASAP with an explanation. And if you knew anything about the US legal system you would know that the price on the lawsuit has almost no bearing on what would actually be awarded. Read the "Art of the Deal". Always ask for more than your opponent is willing to give, it makes the ultimate settled amount seem much more reasonable.
I was a contractor, so I know how to negotiate my claims. If you think you deserve K, you go on with a 1M claim if you know that the client will negotiate anyway. Now this 75million I happen to be fairly close to this from a perspective of not only being a photographer, but also having spent a considerable amount of my life in upper management for fortune organizations.
Now let's add to this that I also happen to live in Cincinnati and happen to know one of their employees extremely well. One could say it's like we were married. This professional deserves to be paid, period. I don't think anyone can argue that. Not only no, but hell no. Now I come from a different cloth than others. These lawsuits are just another reason why our legal system is screwy. Take everything else out of it, none of us deserve that kind of money for the work we do. It's obscene that the lawyers are asking for this.
The question becomes how do you penalize an organization for these violations? In the U. The maximum possible statutory awards made possible by copyright law reflect the seriousness of the willful misbehavior and the financial resources of the infringer. You may not think that the photographer deserves the money but the company certainly deserves to pay the amount if it willfully infringed to the extent alleged in this particular lawsuit.
Whatever that is determined by her views on this. I would argue that if in the same situation, none of us would even approach a number close to that if we were asked how much to settle this with an apology. No one is above keying in a wrong date into a system.
This went overseas so it now belongs to a different business unit and been missed. Filed wrong. A simple oversight. And this is what courts are for. Partially To determine intent. If it is a reasonable mistake, then that is a mitigating factor. However, even if it was a mistake, then the company should be held liable for more than normal pricing, or there is no incentive to not "make mistakes". While the photographer may not deserve 75M in any case, having soft penalties makes IP theft a fail-safe practice.
Find out what's new, what it's like to use and how it compares to its peers in our review in progress. The S1 and S1R are Panasonic's first full-frame mirrorless cameras so there's a plenty to talk about. We've taken a look at the design and features of both cameras and have some initial impressions, as well. Here's the one we recommend Aimed at sports shooters it promises improved AF, including advanced subject recognition, along with the highest-ever rated image stabilization system.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck. These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier. The data breach we reported on last week did not only affect px but a total of 16 websites, including mobile image sharing platform EyeEm, Animoto, Artsy and Fotolog. Camera Rescue, a Finnish organization determined to rescue more than K analog, has already saved 46, cameras and plans to more than double that number by Independent lens manufacturer Sigma has announced that its new 28mm T1.
At Dubai's recent Gulf Photo Plus event, Fujifilm showed off several of its early concept mockups for GFX cameras that sadly never made it into production. We took a closer look. Panasonic is well known for including impressive video features on its cameras. In this article, professional cinematographer Jack Lam explains one killer feature the company could add to its S series that would shake up the industry — and it all comes down to manual focus.
Full-frame cameras get a lot of attention lately, but Technical Editor Richard Butler thinks that APS-C makes the most sense for a lot of people — and there's just one company consistently giving the format the support it deserves. The 12th International Garden Photographer of the Year winners have been announced. We've gathered the top photos from each category and rounded them up into a slideshow.
Kosmo Foto has announced the release and opened pre-orders for its new Mono black-and-white film. Uber software engineer Phillip Wang has created a website that shows a portrait of a person that doesn't actually exist by using AI to merge multiple faces together. Dying to ask a question that hasn't been addressed anywhere else online?
Click through for details. Got a couple of minutes? The illness, linked to toxins produced by the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, most commonly strikes women of childbearing age, but sometimes occurs in men and children.
The center first linked toxic shock with tampon use in June Three months later, when the agency singled out Rely as a possible common denominator in many cases, the company recalled the product, although it disputed the link. Some doctors also say there is no scientific evidence for a link between the disease and the use of tampons.
Comment From the Lawyer. View all New York Times newsletters. Miss Lampshire said that the family was ''happy'' with the settlement. Please upgrade your browser. See next articles. View page in TimesMachine. Comment From the Lawyer ''We got what we feel was a fair settlement,'' said Steve Kaufman, a lawyer representing Miss Lampshire and her family.
Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up.
From Altoids to Zima: Simon. The Coming Plague: Retrieved 30 April 19, Intellectual Property Update1 International Playtex, Inc. Recipient name: Recipient email: Craps casino style optional: Send me a copy of this email as well. Salinger 3 August The Curse: and Schuster. June 1, National Public Radio. May 24, Retrieved December 11, 7 December The spacesuit unpicked". Retrieved 27 April First Quality Hygienic, Inc. Косметология в студии l oreal не планирует выпускать версию приложения. Smith 1 May The Money. Lewis Menstrual Health in Women's.Here Is A List Of All Of The Gillette/ PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANIES & SUBSIDIARIES To BOYCOTT! A federal jury yesterday slammed Procter & Gamble with nearly $3 Playtex sued, claiming the ads were untrue and unfairly attacked its. Procter & Gamble has been hit with a fifth false advertising lawsuit in the US in is the plaintiff this time, following suits from Kimberly-Clark, Playtex Products. We believe P&G's allegations have no basis. and disposable razors; Edge® and Skintimate® shave preparations; Playtex®, Stayfree®, -personal-care-issues-statement-regarding-procter--gamble-lawsuithtml. 161 162 163 164 165