Oscar Winner Sues BBC & CBS For Copyright Infringement Of His Photo
from the something's-missing dept
THREsq has an interesting story about how the guy, Louie Psihoyos, who won an Oscar for best documentary this year for The Cove, apparently has a pretty quick legal trigger finger against anyone using a photograph he took 15 years ago. He's sued a bunch of companies over the years, and the latest is the BBC and CBS. He claims that it cost him $100,000 to create the photograph, which can be seen here:
However, the article also notes that Psihoyos has sued a bunch of times in the past over this photo as well. For example, a year ago, he sued Apple for the second time over this photo. While that lawsuit was eventually settled, the details suggest that Psihoyos was barking up the wrong tree on that lawsuit. It wasn't a case of Apple using the image, but a random iPhone app developer. You would think that Apple would have a clear DMCA safe harbor response, which would protect it from such a lawsuit, so I'm a bit surprised they ended up settling.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, louis psihoyos, photographs
Companies: bbc, cbs, intel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And what business sense does it make to spend $100k to create a photograph? None, because it's unlikely you'll ever recover all that money -- unless you use it to sue the world for massive damages, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Easily doable in 1995? Not in the slightest, 3d software was rare and very expensive, machines that could run it even more so and people with good skills to do it rarest of all
People seem to regularly forget how far computing has come in the last 15 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People seem to regularly forget how far computing has come in the last 15 years
No - it was easily do-able in 1995. A flick through the SIGGRAPH conference proceedings from the preceding 15 years (1980-1995) should easily convince you of that.
It could have been done using POVray on a moderate PC by anyone who had done a degree level graphics module and spent a month learning the syntax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heck, before then with the amiga we had raytracing renderers.
People seem to regularly exaggerate how far computing has come in the last 15 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But yeah, still a waste of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And what business sense does it take . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The work is not the copy
Similarly, you could set a briefcase containing a million dollars alight in order to photograph it. Does that make the photo worth more than it cost to print it?
Work is not transferred into a recording. The recording is just a recording. The recording itself may have involved some work, but that's independent of the work being recorded, and independent of the cost of making a copy of the recording.
Copyright has got a lot to answer for.
The sooner it's abolished the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The work is not the copy
The sole purpose of setting up the space shuttle was not to take a picture of it.
I daresay the sole purpose of setting up all the TVs was to take a picture of them. Even if he did want to try to catch everything on TV at that moment.
I daresay the rest of your points are reasonable though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No safe harbour for the app store
Anything and everything that can appear on the app store has to be approved by them beforehand (and they charge for this) and then they make a direct percentage based profit from any sales of that app.
This very process removes their safe harbour protection and makes them a retailer, not a “service provider” which is who the safe harbour protections were designed for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should he have the right to sue anyone who uses his pic without authorization? I think so, particularly if -as in this case- it is a business using it to promote one of their activity/product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe - but the point is that the value of the work and the rights of the artist don't depend one little bit on how much it actually cost to make. So the artist's protestations about how much it cost are the thing that is pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or possible $1000 for the photo then $99,000 to destroy the tv screens afterward (otherwise re-selling/renting the screens would have reduced the cost quite a bit)...
Third option...$1000 for the photo, and £99,000 to edit out the girl that had her head in the guy's lap....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His artwork
Go to any stock image site and you'll find hundreds of vaguely similar photoshopped or rendered images for sale. You'll find plenty for free as well.
But the point is this guy created it; he owns it. It doesn't matter whether anyone else thinks it has any artistic merit, or whether they believe his claim for how much it cost him to create, or whether they think he was a dumbass for not doing it with 3d animation; it's his.
So I think he's entitled to try and stop people like the BBC and CBS using it as a free stock image to illustrate unrelated stories.
For what it's worth, it looks to me like he really did hire a studio, set up 500 TVs, tune them in and probably take scores of photos to get the perfect one. Nice job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]