Image Source/ Corbis RF
What is a photo worth? Fascinating discussion over at ‘A Photo Editor’ examines a little known but significant case brought by a photographer whose images he argues were used in ways not covered by the license
63 comments already on a law-suit article posted on A Photo Editor. Rob Haggart highlights a case which began in 2010 when photographer Richard Reinsdorf took out a case against Skechers, the sneaker brand.At the heart of Reinsdorf’s case is Reinsdorf’s assertion that the images he had taken for very specific usage, over a specific period of time, were used by Skechers in ways which exceeded the terms of his license. Then Skechers filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the basis that they had worked with the images and changed how they looked, from skin tone, to substitution of body parts to other graphic effects.
A Photo Editor reports the Judge’s discussion
“Skechers is correct that a co-author in a joint work cannot be liable to another co-owner for infringement of the copyright.” But APE point out that that’s not the issue because “Contrary to Skechers’ assertions, the evidence in the record does not indisputably establish that Reinsdorf intended that his photographs be incorporated into a joint work.”
There’s a great discussion over at A Photo Editor including fascinating anecdotes around what Photographers have done in the past including the late Jim Marshall who used to keep a lawyer on retainer for just such scenarios. And in this instance, with $250 million as the starting point for negotiations, that sounds like a sensible idea.