Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Fair Use or Copyright Infringement
Lile from Art.net has written about an artist/photographer friend that went to court over a copyright infringement and was told it was a case of "Fair Use".
Here's the story..
"An artist brought a case against the San Jose Mercury News for copyright infringement because they published his art without his knowledge or consent. It was published in conjunction with a book review of a book that contained a copyrighted photo that belonged to the artist and photographer, Christopher R Harris. The copyright notice that was printed with the photo in the book was removed when the image was published by the Mercury News paper.
When the artist confronted the paper, they said that they were unwilling to compensate the artist and suggested that the artist "sue" them if he wanted to pursue the matter. So he did just that! Unfortunately the jury ruled in favor ot the newspaper saying that it was a case of "fair use". Art.net
There's also a more detailed plot of the whole story here.
The San Jose Mercury News also published an article about the outcome of the case here, with this quote..
"It means a lot,'' Chadwick said. "This is a classic example of how newspapers use material that is sent to them every day. If a photographer or photo agency had veto over the use of these kinds of images, then newspapers would just stop using them and readers wouldn't get the visual information.''
>> Art Controversies, Photography ¶ 10:35 PM
Here's the story..
"An artist brought a case against the San Jose Mercury News for copyright infringement because they published his art without his knowledge or consent. It was published in conjunction with a book review of a book that contained a copyrighted photo that belonged to the artist and photographer, Christopher R Harris. The copyright notice that was printed with the photo in the book was removed when the image was published by the Mercury News paper.
When the artist confronted the paper, they said that they were unwilling to compensate the artist and suggested that the artist "sue" them if he wanted to pursue the matter. So he did just that! Unfortunately the jury ruled in favor ot the newspaper saying that it was a case of "fair use". Art.net
There's also a more detailed plot of the whole story here.
The San Jose Mercury News also published an article about the outcome of the case here, with this quote..
"It means a lot,'' Chadwick said. "This is a classic example of how newspapers use material that is sent to them every day. If a photographer or photo agency had veto over the use of these kinds of images, then newspapers would just stop using them and readers wouldn't get the visual information.''
>> Art Controversies, Photography ¶ 10:35 PM
I can see where both parties are coming from.
But what's with the $175,000 that the artist was requesting? Isnt that a little rich?
One wonders if it really is about the copyright infringement or the money.
But what's with the $175,000 that the artist was requesting? Isnt that a little rich?
One wonders if it really is about the copyright infringement or the money.
# posted by 
: 5:22 AM
: 5:22 AM
ugh!!!!!!!!!!!! They deliberately removed the copyright before printing the pic. hum!!!!!!! Not sure how artists can protect their work if courts don't respect copyright laws :(
omar, he may have asked for that amount to cover the cost of hiring a lawyer to challenge the big guys abusing his copyright rights.
omar, he may have asked for that amount to cover the cost of hiring a lawyer to challenge the big guys abusing his copyright rights.
Hi,I am Chris Harris the photographer involved in the suit.
I would just like to clear-up some of the questions posted.
The amount of money was for "Statutory Damages." In other words they are damages that the law states are applicable. I did not choose damages...they were what the law states.
As for the attorney fees...I was lucky and found an attorney who took it on a "contingency" basis. That is , he took it knowing that if I got any award he would have earned a percentage including a possible judgement award of his fees. My attorney's fees for this case that has 375 legal filings, 185 exhibits is slightly over $US 800,000. It is estimated that the Mercury New has spent nearly $US 2 million.
This was a case that I persued due to the fact that I was tired of having my photography stolen by publishers.
An essential part of the case is that my photograph was copyrighted inside of a copyrighted book. As you have noted, the newspaper even took-off my copyright notice.
More information on the background of this case can be found on a blog I maintain:
http://digitalprof.wordpress.com/
I appreciate that this information has been put on Art News Blog...everyone should understand that copyright does not appear to offer the rights we artists need. I feed my family with licenses of my art, as well as my teaching. I have now lost a valuable resource if every publication can now use any of my work for free.
My best to all artists.
Chris Harris
I would just like to clear-up some of the questions posted.
The amount of money was for "Statutory Damages." In other words they are damages that the law states are applicable. I did not choose damages...they were what the law states.
As for the attorney fees...I was lucky and found an attorney who took it on a "contingency" basis. That is , he took it knowing that if I got any award he would have earned a percentage including a possible judgement award of his fees. My attorney's fees for this case that has 375 legal filings, 185 exhibits is slightly over $US 800,000. It is estimated that the Mercury New has spent nearly $US 2 million.
This was a case that I persued due to the fact that I was tired of having my photography stolen by publishers.
An essential part of the case is that my photograph was copyrighted inside of a copyrighted book. As you have noted, the newspaper even took-off my copyright notice.
More information on the background of this case can be found on a blog I maintain:
http://digitalprof.wordpress.com/
I appreciate that this information has been put on Art News Blog...everyone should understand that copyright does not appear to offer the rights we artists need. I feed my family with licenses of my art, as well as my teaching. I have now lost a valuable resource if every publication can now use any of my work for free.
My best to all artists.
Chris Harris
Yeah, that's a bit rude that they actually removed the copyright notice. I thought newspapers were more respectful in regards to copyright, but obviously they don't have to be.
And wow, them legal fees are impressive. It shows why most artists would have just let the matter slip. I can't imagine having to pay an $800,000 bill for legal costs.
I complain about paying the accountant $150 each year, so I don't think I'll be looking to pay any legal fees anytime soon.
Thanks for the added information too Chris.
Dion
And wow, them legal fees are impressive. It shows why most artists would have just let the matter slip. I can't imagine having to pay an $800,000 bill for legal costs.
I complain about paying the accountant $150 each year, so I don't think I'll be looking to pay any legal fees anytime soon.
Thanks for the added information too Chris.
Dion
Thanks folks for your remarks. Luckily I do not have to pay the full attorneys fee. That is the good side of having one work "on contingency"...of course it would have been better if I had won.
Not to let too much personal information out, I am full professor at a university in one of the lowest paying in the US. I went heavily into debt in order to try to stop this rampant "piracy" of images. In discovery for the trial I discovered five more instances of my images being appropriated. Three of my photos of Tennessee Williams were auctioned-off by a major US house...and they had stamps on the back showing that they were printed by the "LIFE" magazine photo lab as well as two others from the "People" magazine lab. Obviously I did not print them. So who's were they, and how did they get them to auction? I certainly never received any payment.
A crazy world, eh?
Stay the course, do what is right.
Chris Harris
Not to let too much personal information out, I am full professor at a university in one of the lowest paying in the US. I went heavily into debt in order to try to stop this rampant "piracy" of images. In discovery for the trial I discovered five more instances of my images being appropriated. Three of my photos of Tennessee Williams were auctioned-off by a major US house...and they had stamps on the back showing that they were printed by the "LIFE" magazine photo lab as well as two others from the "People" magazine lab. Obviously I did not print them. So who's were they, and how did they get them to auction? I certainly never received any payment.
A crazy world, eh?
Stay the course, do what is right.
Chris Harris
My sympathies to you Mr. Harris. As a fellow artist, I totally agree with what you tried to do and how you pursued it. It seems that artists are always getting the short end of the stick. This case only raises more questions about how we can keep our work from getting used by others who are not willing to give credit where credit is due and use the appropriate ways in which they should be used for publication. Not only did you get screwed, but this bodes ill for any artist.
Karen Sloan
http://ca.msnusers.com/PaintedCanvasCommunity
Karen Sloan
http://ca.msnusers.com/PaintedCanvasCommunity
# posted by : 7:47 PM
: 7:47 PM
I am a retired attorney and law educator and likewise obtained a mastes in fine art before getting the law degrees. I am truly sorry that this did not go in your favor. whil;e it may have been declared fair use , I am disconcerted that your copyright was removed and not even attribution was offered. the implication is that someone else claims to have presented your work, not mimicked, they took away the reference to...YOU...
Post a Comment
See our comments policy Comment spam will be deleted
<< Art News Home
