Tiffany & Co., Defenders Of Intellectual Property, Sued For Copyright Infringement
from the live-by-the-ip,-die-by-the-ip dept
For some time now, famed jewelry retailer Tiffany & Co. has been a staunch defender of intellectual property and an adversary to a free and open internet. You will recall that this is the company that wanted eBay to be held liable for third-party auctions of counterfeit Tiffany products. The company also lent its support to censoring the internet via the seizing of domains it didn't like, as well as its support for COICA (which was the predecessor of the bill that eventually became SOPA). COICA, among other things, was a bill that would have allowed the DOJ to seize so-called "pirate" websites that infringed on others' intellectual property.
And because this always seems to happen, it's noteworthy that despite wanting to completely shut down websites due to infringement, Tiffany is now being sued for copyright infringement for using a photograph without permission or attribution.
Tiffany & Co. is in a bit of hot water over a photograph it is using in connection with one of its jewelry lines. Last Friday, New York-based photojournalist Peter Gould filed suit against the famous jewelry company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal court in Manhattan, citing copyright infringement.
According to Gould’s complaint, the Tiffany & Co. website “features the photograph to sell [the company’s] Elsa Peretti Jewelry.” The complaint further states that at all times Gould “has been the sole owner of all right, title and interest in and to the photograph, including the copyright thereto.”
Perhaps more significantly, Gould also alleges that Tiffany & Co. didn't merely use his photograph of Peretti without his permission, but also actively stripped out the copyright information on the photograph to relieve him of any attribution for it as well. That, of course, is a federal no-no spelled Section 1202 of the Copyright Act. Given its vehement defense of intellectual property in the past, the complaint says Tiffany & Co. knew or should have known that such removal of copyright attribution would be seen as an attempt to slide its infringement of Gould's photograph under the legal radar.
Given that the photograph is being used on its website, I'm sure the folks at the company would understand if tiffany.com were seized by the government over such allegations, should they prove to be true. Right?
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, peter gould, trademark
Companies: tiffany
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When we violate it, its no where near as bad as someone selling a 'Tiffany' style cockring on ebay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Since when does forfeiture require proof?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schadenfreude is not for the rich
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But..
Too long ago?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
take it all
asset forfeiture...and ALL
Can we go after the OWNERS?? or are they going to pass the buck?? "WE DIDNT KNOW, we had someone ELSE do it"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It all depends on who you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Schadenfreude is not for the rich
How about a stern talking to?
Oh ... I know, they will get a good long finger wagging - that'll show 'em fer sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
file a request for declaratory
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: file a request for declaratory
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: file a request for declaratory
Not just that, but if the allegations are accurate they went above and beyond what I believe even hardcore pirates tend not to do in stripping out attribution of the photographer in their attempt not to pay, which if true would be a pretty damning bit of evidence that this was deliberate and not just a case of 'Whoops, we accidentally used a photo before we got all the rights to do so cleared through legal'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Which are found all over the planet, so many in fact that there are warehouses FULL of hundreds of thousands of TONS of the stuff, all stored away to keep the price high.
Or is this the same Tiffanys that was accused of not only selling basically dirt, but selling FAKE dirt (zirconium) as real dirt(diamonds) ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: file a request for declaratory
This happens to the rest of us, why not to them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]