Archives For copyright

Another great article by Carolyn E. Wright covering the Lil’ Kim copyright infringement case. Lil’ Kim stole Makeup Artist Samantha Ravndahl’s work to promote her latest single Dead Gal Walking and violated just about every copyright law on the books. If Samantha’s lawyers loose this case then pretty much anything can be stolen on the internet and used to make money without the artist permission or compensation.


You be the judge:

Li'l Kim's image for her new single

Li’l Kim’s image for her new single

Samantha’s published makeup work

“Back in October, Canadian artist Samantha Ravndahl produced a step-by-step tutorial on how to create a “glam zombie” look using makeup and posted it to her Instagram and other social media outlets.

About a month later, Lil’ Kim announced cover for her new single “Dead Gal Walking” and, much to Ravndahl’s surprise, the cover was her image with only slight retouching.

That kicked off a flurry activity that saw Ravndahl try to get in touch with Lil’ Kim’s camp and resolve the issue but, after more than two months of trying, Ravndahl gave up and, earlier this week, filed suit against the singer, her agent and others involved.

On the surface, this looks to be a pretty straightforward case. If Ravndahl’s description of what happened is accurate, then the use is a definite infringement and, to put it modestly, an egregious one. But the actual lawsuit raises some issues, questions and concerns that should have every photographer paying attention as they could set the tone for how photographers are positioned in similar cases down the road.

Reading the complaint, the bulk of the argument centers, as one would expect, around the traditional copyright violation. By taking the photo and using it as a cover for the single, Lil’ Kim’s camp made a variety of unauthorized, commercial copies of the work, posting it to various social media platforms and using it in promotional material.

While this is definitely an extreme example of copyright infringement, it’s also fairly straightforward. For all of the case’s egregiousness, the issues here are fairly mundane. If it is indeed Ravndahl’s photo and Lil’ Kim did not have a license for it, then it is an infringement – end of story.

However, the complaint also made a series of other arguments that are much less common and could play a big role in determining just how large of a lawsuit this becomes”.





Why You Should Watch the Lil’ Kim Copyright Infringement Case


Yes world wide web you have to pay to play…



Photographer Awarded $1.6 Million Dollars for Copyright Infringement

Andrew Paul Leonard is a professional photographer who specializes in creating images of microscopic subject matter using a scanning electron microscope (“SEM”). In 1995, Leonard created photographs of human bone marrow stem cells.

Stemtech Health Services is a direct sales company that markets and sells nutrition supplements on its own and through independent distributors. Leonard filed suit against Stemtech in 2008 for direct copyright infringement for ”using, copying, and displaying” his photos on websites, in publications, and in video presentations and for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement for display of his photos on websites of various distributors of Stemtech’s products.

Because Leonard did not register the copyrights to his photos until after the infringements at issue started, he wasn’t eligible for statutory damages. However, after 5 long years of litigation, a jury awarded Leonard $1.6 million dollars in actual damages on October 11, 2013.  Congrats to Leonard for protecting his copyrights!


“This contest, which is targeted at students and emerging photographers, appears to be an effort to secure thousands of free images for unlimited use in publications and in advertising. For this reason, we believe this contest exploits photographers, and we strongly caution everyone to carefully review and understand all the terms and conditions along with the rights they are surrendering before entering any competition.”

via Photo Contest Warning! | Photo Attorney

Please email the panelist at links below and demand to know why they are involved in this mass rip-off of copyright!

Tomas Maier, Creative Director, Bottega Veneta; Ivan Shaw, Photography Director, Vogue; Linda Evangelista, Supermodel; Carlyne Cerf De Dudzeele, Fashion Editor & Stylist; Collier Schorr, Photographer; Pat McGrath, Makeup Artist; Andrew Bolton, Curator, Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Craig McDean, Photographer; Doug Lloyd, Creative Director, Lloyd & Co; Guido Palau, Hair stylist; Yossi Milo, Gallerist and Jimmy Moffat, Founding Partner, Art & Commerce.

via Vogue

Want to do something about this?

2 judges have Facebook pages you can post to:

Email links:

Message Example:

To All,

Regarding the Vogue Photo contest you or your representatives are judging or promoting . It might be a good idea to distance yourself from this kind of exploitation.

I am sure you did not go into this knowing how bad it is for the young photographers who loose all copyright to their images and for the working pro’s as well (who would of been hired).

In my opinion all judges should step down or force Vogue to change the rules of the contest and allow all rights to remain in the hands of the artists. Until then this is a very ugly contest that only rewards big business at the expense of the young and talented.  Here is your chance to do good!

Sincerely mad as hell,

Your name here…

A national wrap up of all the attempts at squashing the press lately..

It is an artist’s prerogative as to whether or not they will allow photography of their performances. A photo ban is one thing but it appears that Beyoncé wishes to have her cake and eat it too. She still wants photographic coverage but only wants to release images of her own choosing. The NPPA believes that this is improper and we have said so in our letter to her publicist.

We also believe that once it becomes apparent that news organizations are willing to accept this type of policy and use handout photos it will only encourage others to follow suit. The danger in this type of “infotainment” is that the public will be denied the information and images that come from independent news gathering and the media will be relegated to being nothing more than aggregators of sanitized material provided by public relations firms and press secretaries. This point is best illustrated in a joint protest by the NPPA and the White House News Photographers (WHNPA) Association regarding the photo manipulation of an official photograph made available for distribution by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office.

via Photography & the Law – Beyonce’ and Beyond: A Roundup of Recent Legal Issues – JPG News.

…when two Internet giants merge like this, it affects the landscape in many different ways and one of those ways is, inevitably, copyright.

While the buyout doesn’t mean there’s new legislation or new technology to ponder, it does affect the practical realities of copyright on the Web so it’s worth taking a moment to step back and think about what this means for both the current Tumblr uses, those who have to deal with Tumblr on copyright matters and the Web at large.

via Plagiarism Today