The estate of rock ‘n roll photographer Jim Marshall has sued fashion designer John Varvatos for using photos of celebrity musicians without permission in store displays.

According to the lawsuit, Varvatos infringed Marshall’s copyright by reproducing prints of Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, BB King, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and several other rock stars without permission. Varvatos allegedly displayed those reproductions in his own stores, as well as in Bloomingdale’s stores in California and elsewhere.

Bloomindale’s is also named as a defendant in the case, which was filed in federal court in San Francisco on December 29. (more…)

Two months after she settled a copyright suit brought by photographer David LaChapelle, pop singer Rihanna once again has the blogosphere in an uproar. Recently, a LiveJournal blog posted screenshots from her new video, “You Da One,” alongside images by photographer Sølve Sundsbø. The scenes from the video show Rihanna in a bowl-cut wig wearing what appears to be a nude bodysuit with the shadows of various shapes projected on to her body. The shots are remarkably similar to editorial work Sundsbø has done, which Fashionista reported appeared in a 2008 issue of Numero magazine. Neither Rihanna nor Sundsbø, who is represented by Art+Commerce, have released statements regarding these latest accusations.

Earlier this year, Rihanna was sued by LaChapelle for copyright infringement, who claimed scenes from her video “S&M” borrowed heavily from various sadomasochistic images he’s made. The two reached an out-of-court settlement agreement, the terms of which were not disclosed.

Related articles:

Rihanna Settles Lawsuit with David LaChapelle

David LaChapelle Sues Rihanna for Infringement

Over on PDNOnline we’ve gathered together the biggest photography news stories of 2011, a year marked infringements on the rights of photographers, by sticky legal cases whose results will be felt long into the future, and by tragedy. The 15 stories we highlighted were the most-read news articles and blog posts on PDNOnline and PDN Pulse this year.

Which of these stories do you think was the most important news story of the year? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

A number of US photographers may be able to collect royalties they never knew were owed to them, thanks to the efforts of the Authors Coalition of America to collect payment for photocopies of works by US authors that are made in foreign countries.

The ACA has published a royalty distribution list that names dozens of US authors–including some photographers–who are eligible to collect royalties. The list doesn’t say how much each author is eligible to collect, but those listed can fill out forms and contact the ACA about collecting the money.

The list, along with instructions for collecting payments, is posted here on the ACA Web site.

Among the photographers whose names appear on the list are Sam Abell, Walter Bibikow, Andrew Hetherington, Corinne Day, Philip Lorca di Corcia, Gary Hershorn and others.

The ACA is one of 22 author organizations in the US that formed a coalition in 1994 to receive and distribute royalties for photocopies of copyrighted works that are made in foreign countries.

The ACA says on its web site that the royalty collection system originally did not identify authors individually, so the royalties were “used for the benefit of authors” by the 22 organizations that received the royalties. Starting in 2007, however, the ACA began receiving so-called “title-specific” royalties for “visual materials authors.” That means the individual authors are identified in some cases, so the ACA is able to disburse those royalties to the identified authors.

Two university professors specializing in intellectual property law are conducting what could be an intriguing study of “creativity among photographers.” To get photographers to participate in their survey, they’ve launched a nature photo contest for professional photographers. Those who participate will be paid $10, and will be eligible for a prize which may include $1,000 in cash and publication on the Huffington Post Web site.

The researchers are Christopher Sprigman, a professor at the University of Virginia’s school of law, and Chistopher Buccafusco, an assistant professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law.

They have asked us not to disclose the exact purpose of the study, to avoid skewing the results. But they have cleared the study with UVA’s Internal Review Board (a research ethics committee). They have also promised to share their results when the study is completed, and convinced PDN that the findings may be of particular interest to our readers.

Moreover, photographers who participate will be debriefed about the study and its exact purpose immediately after they complete the study questionnaire, Sprigman says — no need to wait for the results to be published.

To participate in the study, click here.

Sprigman expects the study to be completed by August. We will share the results with PDN readers when he and Buccafusco make them available.

There’s no better argument for eschewing a buyout or work-for-hire contract, than Michael Grecco’s real-world example of how he earned more than $140,000 in licensing fees over an eight-year period from one advertising client. Because the contract had a set licensing period, every time the client wanted to use the images after the license expired, Grecco had to be paid again. John Harrington, Grecco’s partner for the 2011 PhotoPlus Expo seminar Licensing: Putting Money Back in Your Pocket, presented a similar case study to demonstrate how he earned $940 from an editorial client who wanted to use additional takes from a cover shoot for two sister publications not included in the license.

Of course, none of these fees would have been possible if their licensing agreements, which should always include the terms of usage (length of time, type of medium, region, etc) and exclusivity, were not clearly defined. Harrington is a big proponent of PLUS (Picture Licensing Universal System), a non-profit organization with the goal “to simplify and facilitate the communication and management of image rights.” On its site, UsePLUS.com, there is a License Generator tool that allows users to create a license based on the criteria entered. The trade organization American Photographic Artists also has licensing information on its site, APANational.com, or you can work with an intellectual property attorney who specializes in artists’ rights. Grecco also mentioned the importance of obtaining model releases and keeping them on file, especially if you plan on selling images commercially.

An important component of licensing is copyright protection, which Grecco and Harrington also discussed. Though as the photographer you technically own the copyright of an image at the click of the camera’s shutter (unless you’re doing work-for-hire or you’ve ceded the rights of the image), actually registering the photo at the U.S. Copyright Office will make prosecuting an infringement case much easier—a lesson Grecco learned the hard way when his photos were infringed: once when a derivative work was created and another time when a work was reprinted, both without his permission.

Grecco briefly touched on his system for registering his images with the Copyright Office, which he does en masse while the photos are still unpublished (once they’ve been published they must be registered individually): He fills out the necessary forms at Copyright.gov; creates CDs or DVDs with the files, organizing them using Print Window for Mac software; and sends the discs via a shipper that provides proof of receipt, such as FedEx or UPS. This last part is particularly important since the copyright goes into effect on the date it’s submitted, which means the date it’s received by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Though the licensing process seems onerous, it’s worth the extra work; both Grecco and Harrington use their knowledge of copyright and licensing to negotiate better fees from clients. And making extra money on photographs you’ve already taken, that’s just a smarter way to do business.

During a seminar titled “The New World of Online Magazines and Curator Web Sites” this afternoon at PDN PhotoPlus Expo, photographer Sophia Wallace posed a question to photographers who’ve been hesitant to harness the full power of the internet for fear that their work might be stolen: Should you be more afraid of image theft, or of working in obscurity?

This rather direct question, which had resonated with Wallace after she heard it at another talk recently, gets to the heart of the decision that photographers must make in today’s market. You can embrace online publishing on blogs, online magazines, Tumblr pages and the myriad other platforms on which people are looking at imagery these days, or you can keep your work to yourself.

Suffice it to say that nobody in the audience was interested in the latter option. But in case they were, Wallace and fellow photographer Manjari Sharma shared stories about their own experiences that made a strong case for diving headlong into promoting one’s work online.

By getting their work featured by online platforms, such as those run by moderator Stella Kramer (StellaZine) and panelists Julie Grahame (aCurator) and Michael Itkoff (Daylight), each of the photographers had built momentum for bodies of work that eventually led to concrete achievements like exhibitions, advertising commissions and essential project funding.

After having her work circulate one image at a time across various online publications (and in a couple of print magazines), Wallace received what she termed “the email she’d been waiting for.” It was from a curator asking if she would show her work in a three-person show at Colgate University’s Clifford Gallery with photographers Catherine Opie and Jo Ann Santangelo. During her presentation Wallace also showed how, through Google analytics, she could track who was looking at her site and where they came from. It was amazing, she said, to realize that people all over the world were looking at her photographs.

Sharma showed two projects that she’d promoted online. A series of portraits of people taken in the shower in her Brooklyn apartment was discovered by art directors at the ad agency JWT in Delhi, which lead to a commission to replicate that work for ads for a German maker of shower heads that was expanding their business in India. Sharma’s photographs appeared on billboards in 23 cities, she said.

After she created a well-produced Kickstarter video to raise funds for her project Darshan, several photo blogs and other online publications wrote about the work. She ended up raising $26,000 of funding over the course of three months.

Each of the panelists encouraged the audience members to build networks online through Facebook and Twitter, and to help promote other photographers whose work they appreciate. Wallace made the point that opportunities for group exhibitions often come from other artists, and introductions to clients often come from fellow photographers.

Kramer also made another useful point for photographers who might still be hesitant to publish their work online: “The more you are associated with your work, the harder it is to steal it,” she said.

The copyright infringement case that forced a Federal judge to evaluate the originality of sadomasochistic motifs has ended in a settlement. Pop singer Rihanna has reached an out-of-court settlement agreement with photographer David LaChapelle, who sued her earlier this year for copyright infringement. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

LaChapelle was seeking at least $1 million in damages from Rihanna,  alleging that some scenes from the video for her hit single called “S&M” were rip-offs of sadomasochistic images LaChapelle had created and published over the years.

The full news story on the case is now on PDNOnline.

Related Story

David LaChapelle Wins Pre-Trial Ruling Against Rihanna
You Be the Judge: Did Rihanna Infringe David LaChapelle’s Work?

Is Bob Dylan–that champion of the poor, the tired, the oppressed–a brazen rip-off artist and infringer of photographers’ copyrights? And if so, who’s going to stop him?

©Rob McKeever/Gagosian Gallery--Bob Dylan's facsimile of the 1948 Cartier-Bresson photo shown below.

©Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum Photos--a 1948 photograph of a eunuch who once served in China's Imperial Court.

Reports (here and here) about the exhibit of Dylan’s new paintings called “The Asia Series” at the Gagosian Gallery in New York certainly suggest a theft problem here. Several of the paintings appear to be unattributed facsimiles of photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Bruce Gilden, Dmitri Kessel, Leon Busy, and others.

The Gagosian Gallery originally described the show as a a “visual journal” of Dylan’s travels in Asia. But after visitors began to recognize Dylan’s paintings for what they are, Gagosian took to calling “The Asia Series” a “visual reflection” of the legendary songwriter’s travels in Asia.

The Huffington Post quips, “No less than ten [of the paintings] may in fact be a visual reflections of Dylan’s travels through online photo archives rather than of any personal journey.”

Gagosian has issued a statement acknowledging that Dylan’s compositions are “based on a variety of sources, including archival, historic images.” But the gallery adds that “the paintings’ vibrancy and freshness come from the colors and textures found in everyday scenes he observed during his travels.”

In other words, Dylan has in some way transformed the images to make them his own–a point that could be subject to vigorous and costly debate in a federal court if Dylan gets sued.

That’s a big if. Right now, the question is: Who (if anyone) has the temerity and resources to take Dylan to court for copyright infringement?

Another pressing question is, Why is the Gagosian Gallery continuing to aid and abet copyright infringers? Earlier this year, a federal court found that Gagosian and Richard Prince infringed photographer Patrick Cariou’s copyrights by exhibiting a series of Prince paintings that were copied from Cariou’s photographs. Did Gagosian learn anything at all from its ignominious legal defeat in that case? (Prince, by the way, is appealing the verdict.)

Finally, a bonus question: If you or I–rather than Bob Dylan–had painted “The Asia Series,” would Gagosian have even let us in the door with this pile of photo faxes, much less mounted an exhibition?

All together now: The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind. The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

Related story:
Appropriation Artist Richard Prince Liable for Infringement, Court Rules

The National Portrait Gallery has announced a portrait competition that has stirred the outrage of at least one photographer (who told us about it) because of the rights transfer terms of the contest rules.

Rights transfers in photography contests are often a lightning rod, but the rules of this contest are more complicated than “we own everything you submit.” (more…)