Photographer's Rights

I have written before about the rights of photographers and the difficulty they have in protecting their copyrights. So, it was no surprise to read about a recent lawsuit filed by the heirs of the late rock and roll photographer, Jim Marshall, against a boutique owned by the designer, John Varvatos.

I am a big fan of Jim Marshall’s photography. I have a book of his work in my library. I wish I could re-produce some of his iconic images here (like Johnny Cash shooting the finger at San Quentin Prison), but I can’t because Marshall’s copyrights gave him the exclusive rights to control the public display and distribution of his work.

Varvatos was friend of Marshall’s. In fact, Marshall was supposed to speak at Varvatos’ store the night he died. Varvatos displayed several of Marshall’s photographs in his New York store in tribute to his friend. Apparently, he also made copies and displayed them at all of his stores in the United States, including those located inside of Bloomingdales, now a co-defendant in the suit. Marshall’s estate is seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000.00 for each infringement.

This kind of blatant misuse of someone’s intellectual property seems almost unbelievable in this day and age, but it is a reminder that the intrinsic value of photographer’s work is often severely misunderstood. I had this impressed upon me early in my career by a photographer friend of mine, and I have never forgotten the lesson. Having represented several photographers over the years, I see that it is important to remind the world of their intellectual property rights, especially in this digital age.

Behind Every Succesful Album There is a Lawsuit

A model named Kirsten Kennis has sued the band Vampire Weekend, its label XL Recordings and others for $2 million claiming that she did not authorize the use of her photograph on the cover of the band’s successful album “Contra”. Apparently Ms. Kennis alleges that her signature on the photographer’s release form was forged. The photo was apparently taken in 1983. Making sure that one has secured a release from any person appearing on album artwork is a standard practice and it seems strange that that practice might not have been followed in this case. Indeed, a spokesperson for the label was quoted as saying “As is standard practice, Vampire Weekend and XL Recordings licensed the rights to use the photo on the cover of Contra pursuant to a license agreement that contains representations and warranties authorizing this use of the photo.” (that actually sounds more like a lawyer than a spokesperson). This case could conceivably have implications for photographers, art directors etc. The case will probably settle but it would be interesting to know what the actual value of the model’s image is worth.