A photographer is suing AFP and Getty Images for 120 million US Dollars over photos that he had taken in Haiti after the earthquake and which he had shared on Twitter.
I find it remarkable that this story doesn’t get more attention because it shows just how much trouble you can get into if you take photos from social media platforms without making sure that you have the necessary rights.
Downloaded from Twitpic
In a nutshell here is what happened (check out the British Journal of Photography if you want more details):
Daniel Morel is a professional photographer and was in Port-au-Prince when the earthquake happened. He immediately started taking photos and made some of them available in high resolution through Twitter/Twitpic. The photos were retweeted and an AFP editor downloaded them and shared them with AFPs own subscribers as well with Getty Images who resold the photos as well. In total 820 copies of Morel’s photos were sold.
The question, which is now being discussed before a New York court, is whether what AFP did was legal or not. AFP argues that Twitters Terms of Service grant third parties the right to rebroadcast content. In addition they argue that Morel de facto consented to the photos being reused in a commercial fashion by making them available through a social network in high resolution.
Morel naturally sees things differently and sues AFP/Getty for the maximum amount of 150,000 US Dollars per alleged copyright infringement.
The rules apply to everyone
This is a really interesting case because AFP essentially argues that it was ok to take the photos and even profit from them financially, simply because they were on the internet. However, at the same time AFP and Getty are pursuing bloggers who take their photos without permission. Surely you can’t have it both ways.
Besides, I would argue that companies, whose sole business model is acquiring and reselling rights should really know better and be held to a higher standard.
I doubt and I don’t think that Morel should get 120 million from AFP. But whatever amount he gets in the end, it should be a warning to all NGOs and humanitarian organizations who are lax about acquiring rights for photos and videos. Having written permission to use photos is absolutely essential!
Update 7 February 2013: The proceedings moved forward a little bit in January 2013. No trial date has been set and no damages have been awarded, but the judge found that AFP has been guilty of at least some form of copyright infringement, with the severity still to be determined. Read more at the British Journal of Photography.