1

Table of content
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................2
1.1 What is meant by "copyright infringement"?.............................................................3
1.2 Recognize instances of copyright infringement:..........................................................3
2.0 Case study:..........................................................................................................................3
2.1 Case 1: Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation......................................................4
2.2 Case 2: Supermodel Sued by Paparazzi for Posting Picture of herself on
Instagram..............................................................................................................................5
2.3 Case 3: The Associated Press vs. Fairey.......................................................................7
2.4 Case 4: Rogers vs. Koons:..............................................................................................8
2.5 Case 5: Daniel Morel Awarded $1.2M in Agence France-Presse and Getty Images
Lawsuit..................................................................................................................................9
3.0 What you should know about copyright infringement and how to avoid it...............10
4.0 My copyrights have been violated. How do I go about reporting and dealing with
this?..........................................................................................................................................11
5.0 What are the consequences for copyright violations?..................................................11
Reference:...............................................................................................................................13

2
1.0 Introduction
1.1 What is meant by "copyright infringement"?
An infringement of intellectual property rights occurs when someone uses or produces
copyrighted work without first obtaining permission from the original creator. If a third party
infringes on a copyright owner's rights, for example, the owner's right to use the work solely
for a specified amount of time, the copyright owner can sue the third party for damages.
Photography, movies, and music are just a few examples of well-known forms of
entertainment that have been subjected to numerous copyright infringements. Infringement
lawsuits may result in contingent liabilities, which refer to the amount of money set aside in
event of a legal action being brought (KENTON, 2020).

1.2 Recognize instances of copyright infringement:

Anyone involved in the creation of new works or projects can apply for copyright protection
in order to reap the benefits of their labour and investment. Licenses to use these works can
be granted to third parties through the use of a licence agreement, or they can be purchased
directly from the owner of the intellectual property rights (KENTON, 2020). However, there
are a variety of reasons that might result in third-party infringement of intellectual property
rights. Some of the causes include the expensive cost of licenced works as well as the
impossibility to get a consistent supply of licenced works.

With the emergence of digital photos, the process of copying photographs has become quite
simple for everyone. It has recently been brought to the attention of the Copyright Office that
a variety of copyright issues have arisen that have affected photographers, illustrators, and
graphic designers. A few illustrations are shown below.

2.0 Case study:

3
2.1 Case 1: Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation

First of all is the case of a design company in Seattle and Disney. Modern Dog, a Seattle-
based design group, included a series of dog doodles in their 2008 Chronicle Books
compendium. Disney has been sued by the business, which claims that graphics from that
design have been utilised in a T-shirt created by Disney/Target for sale. The complaint was
filed in 2011 (JAAIMINO, 2015). Despite the fact that a verdict has not yet been reached in
this case, Modern Dog has been actively pushing for exposure and funding to assist with its
legal bills in connection with the matter. With the Modern Dog case, a subject that has been
on the minds of many designers and artists has now been brought to light – what happens
when a huge organisation with far more resources than them decides to use their work for
profit? Modern Dog has just been forced to sell their studio in order to meet the legal fees
related to this dispute, and as a result, they are in a very difficult financial condition. Keeping
an eye on how this develops and working to shift the dialogue surrounding this problem will
be important tasks for us. Always be prepared to defend the designs. Regardless matter who
we are up against, if we believe our design is correct, then make your position known.
(Ellison, 2012)

4
2.2 Case 2: Supermodel Sued by Paparazzi for Posting Picture of herself on Instagram

Gigi Hadid hinted at a lawsuit in a social media post. As Hadid disclosed on Instagram, a
copyright infringement complaint has been filed against her for uploading a paparazzi shot on
her Instagram account. New York-based XCLUSIVE-LEE Inc. claims that Hadid "copied
and uploaded" a photo from the company's Instagram account "without licence or
authorization from Xclusive." (XCLUSIVE-LEE, INC. V. HADID, 2019)

Claims are being made by Xclusive that Gigi Hadid, who posted the now-deleted image of
herself on Instagram and other social media accounts, had "first-hand knowledge" that
copying and posting images of herself without proper licencing or permission from the
copyright owner was a violation of the copyright law. (XCLUSIVE-LEE, INC. V. HADID,
2019)

According to Xclusive, "The facts alleged in that case are nearly identical to the facts alleged
in the present case, including the allegation that Hadid copied and posted Plaintiff Cepeda's
copyrighted photograph (of Hadid on a public street in New York City) to Hadid's Instagram
and Twitter accounts without licence or permission from the copyright holder."

This is not a one-time occurrence. At least fifty examples of unauthorised images are found
on Hadid's Instagram account, according to the lawsuit, as of the date of this filing." The

5
majority of these images were released by Hadid without permission or licence from the
copyright owners," says the statement.

Xclusive claims direct copyright infringement in light of this. Hadid's "willful and
purposeful" exhibition of the photograph without Xclusive's permission is a legal
infringement because the photo agency is the exclusive owner of the image's copyright,
regardless of who appears in it. monetary penalties, as well as a court order to stop Hadid
from "copying and republishing the copyrighted image without authorization or otherwise
violating its copyright or other rights in any manner," are among the damages sought by the
agency. (XCLUSIVE-LEE, INC. V. HADID, 2019)

Celebrities' right to regulate how their likeness is used by others is the subject of a bigger
debate in the wake of this case. At least some celebrities, notably the Kardashians, have
contended that picture agencies/paparazzi photographers, who have established their
businesses by taking and licencing often-unauthorized images of celebrities, have a right of
publicity argument to be made.

As a general rule, right of publicity statutes require that you obtain permission from the
person who has given you permission before you can use his or her name, voice, signature,
photograph, or likeness "on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for the purpose of
advertising or selling," or soliciting purchases of, those products, merchandise, goods, or
services (or any combination thereof). While at the same time, most states' right of publicity
statutes – or the corresponding case law – contains language that states, in part, that such
consent is not required when the "use of a person's name; voice; signature; photograph; or
likeness" is in connection with a "news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any
political campaign."

With that in mind, it may be difficult for celebrities – given their devoted fan groups – to
claim that many of their appearances, even if they are otherwise objectively mediocre, do not
come inside the "newsworthiness" exemption. (The Fashion Law, 2019)

6
2.3 Case 3: The Associated Press vs. Fairey

Shephard Fairey, a well-known street artist, is the next case to mention. A "Hope Poster" was
created by this artist during President Obama's first presidential campaign. The concept
became an emblem of the political process in no time. The notion quickly gained popularity
and was used as a campaign emblem. Despite the fact that the poster had nothing to do with
the campaign in terms of substance, it was given permission to be displayed. (Kennedy,
2011)

Fairey's artwork was allegedly inspired by a photograph shot by Associated Press freelancer
Mannie Garcia, and the Associated Press filed a lawsuit to obtain compensation for the
photograph.

Fairey argued in favour of fair use, stating that the poster did not detract from the value of the
original photograph. Following that, the artist and representatives from the Associated Press
agreed on a private settlement. A component of this is the benefit-sharing arrangement for the
work.

Although there was no judicial ruling or definitive finding, in this case, it provoked a great
deal of discussion concerning the legitimacy of work in copyright disputes. Garcia's art may
establish a reputation even if the poster is not shown. Only after Fairey made the poster did
the photograph have an impact. The fact that Fairey shot images without the photographer's

7
consent, despite the fact that the case has been settled, remains a source of contention.
(Ellison, 2012)

2.4 Case 4: Rogers vs. Koons:

Another case is a Photographer named Art Rogers, who captured a series of photographs of a
couple holding puppies and used them to produce greeting cards and other similar things to
sell them online. Artist Jeff Koons recently organised an exhibition about the mediocrity of
daily goods, which was well-attended by the public. He went through Rogers' images and
created a set of statues based on them, which are now on display.

Koons has made a substantial amount of money from his sculptures. After discovering the
duplicate, Rodgers filed a lawsuit against Koons for infringement of his intellectual property
rights. Responding to the criticism, Koons stated that it was satire and fair use. Following the
decision, Koons was obligated to pay a fee to Rogers. In this case, Koon's defence was denied
because it was determined that the two photographs were too similar, and so Koon's defence
was dismissed. Even though Koon could have made the same assertion using more generic
sources, he chose to use Rogers' work instead.

This is one of those well-known incidents that encapsulated a broader issue in the art world,
namely, the subject of appropriation art, in its entirety. Can you build on someone else's work
in order to produce your own unique piece of art? And, if you do, does it constitute a form of
unauthorised copying?

It also brought up the question of photography as art: is photography simply a means of

documenting the world, or is it a form of expression and aesthetic expression? Of course,

8
neither of these questions was completely resolved by the decision, but it has nonetheless
established a precedent that has been applied in several subsequent instances.

This may be compared to the process of vector-tracing an image for your design. Are you
making a derivative work that detracts from the worth of the original artist's creation?
(Ellison, 2012)

2.5 Case 5: Daniel Morel Awarded $1.2M in Agence France-Presse and Getty Images
Lawsuit

When Agence France-Presse and Getty Images originally removed Daniel Morel's images
from Twitter in 2010 and disseminated them without authorization to a number of prominent
media, this storey was just getting started. The odyssey has finally come to a conclusion, and
Morel, who walked away with $1.2 million in cash, is extremely pleased with the outcome.
(Cade, 2013)

When District Judge Alison Nathan of Manhattan ruled that Agence France-Presse and Getty
had infringed on Morel's copyright in January 2013, it was just the beginning of a long and
arduous legal struggle that has yet to come to an end.

9
However, the question of whether or not Morel's copyright was intentionally violated
remains. Mistakes were blamed by the agencies, but Morel's lawyer insisted that Getty and
Agence France-Presse understood what they were doing when they used the image.

Laura Brauer of Rangefinder reports that the final decision was made, which led to a
"delighted" Morel and a "dumbfounded" defence team (Brauer, 2013). Morel was awarded
$1.2 million in damages by a federal jury that ruled that the agencies had acted deliberately.

A total of 16 breaches of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were discovered against
Getty Images and Agence France-Presse for a total of $400,000. According to Agence
France-request Presse's following the January verdict, they should be awarded a total of
$120,000.

For photographers, this is a monumental case that will resonate for years to come. Joseph
Baio, Morel's attorney, told Reuters, "We think this is the first time that these defendants or
any other large digital licensor of photographs have been found accountable for deliberate
infringement of the Copyright Act."

Twitter allows for publishing and retweeting, but not for commercial usage of images
provided by its members. As a result of the jury's decision, Morel was awarded $1.2 million.

Despite this judgement, many people still feel that copyright is lost when a work is shared on
social networking platforms. Getty has learned the hard way that this is not the case, and it
was a costly one. (GRAHAM, 2017)

3.0 What you should know about copyright infringement and how to avoid it
Here are some useful ideas and advice for everyone to follow in order to avoid copyright
infringement and the threat of getting sued. The first step is to have an understanding of how
copyright rules apply to us. Because copyright law is frequently confused with trademarks,
patents, and licences, it is important to understand the differences. Copyright can be gained or
infringed upon in the most straightforward manner, whether intentionally or accidentally
(Copyrighted, 2019).

First and foremost, do not make use of work that was not created by you. Don't get your
hands on anything that isn't yours, as the phrase goes. A general guideline is that before
attempting to utilise someone else's work, we must first get permission from the owner or

10
creator of the work in question. If you do not own the work, you will not be able or permitted
to submit an application. However, even if the work does not have a copyright mark, this
assertion is nonetheless true.

Last but not least, do not copy an idea from the internet without permission. The vast bulk of
what you can discover on the internet is unfair to the consumer. Because items such as blogs
and artistic works are generated by others, everything you view or read on the Internet is by
default protected by copyright, according to a general rule. If you duplicate, exhibit, or
otherwise maintain the work of others in your own capacity, you would undoubtedly be
infringing on their intellectual property rights. This holds true whether or not you have reaped
financial benefits as a result of your use. (Copyrighted, 2019)

4.0 My copyrights have been violated. How do I go about reporting and dealing with this?
For works that you are the author or proprietor, you are responsible for ensuring the cessation
of unauthorised use of the work. The most direct method of preventing copyright
infringement may be to send so-called copyright infringement notifications directly to the
person who is doing the infringement. Specifically, it draws attention to the subject matter
that is protected by copyright, notifies the recipient of suspected infringement or unauthorised
use, and threatens to take urgent legal action if the infringing conduct is not stopped
immediately. In addition, the notice may impose sanctions for any improper use of
copyrighted materials that have occurred in the past.

"Termination letters" for copyright infringement are similar to "stopping letters," with the
offender being ordered to cease the violation immediately, eliminate any possible harm, and
promptly remove the use of copyrighted content from public exhibition.

In this case, you can pick the second option, which is to file a civil complaint against the
infringing party on your behalf as the copyright owner or holder of the copyrighted work. If
the first strategy does not work, this is the only option left. In order to win the case, you'll
have to demonstrate that your copyright rights exceed the infringer's usage of the work. In
general, you can seek a court to order the infringing party to immediately cease using
copyrighted works and to compensate you for any actual damages that you have suffered as a
result of the infringement of your rights.

5.0 What are the consequences for copyright violations?

11
Depending on how you were falsely accused of copyright infringement, you might face the
following consequences:

Infringing on intellectual property rights will result in both civil and criminal sanctions.

 Damages for copyright infringement and actual earnings are lost directly as a result of
the violation.
 In the event of intentional or wilful infringement, civil fines from $200 up to
$150,000 per instance of work may be imposed (such as counterfeiting) Statutory
damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 for each infringing work. (Purdue University,
n.d.)
 Criminal penalties of up to $250,000 in fines and up to five years in prison are
possible.

You may protect yourself against copyright infringement by registering your work with the
assistance of a lawyer. Additionally, experts will aid you in avoiding or arguing against fines
for copyright infringement.

12
Reference:

Brauer, L. (2013). Jury Awards Daniel Morel Full Extent of Law; Finds AFP, Getty Willful in Copyright
Violation. Rangefinder .

Cade, D. (2013). Daniel Morel Awarded $1.2M in Damages in Lawsuit Against AFP and Getty Images.
PetaPixel.

Copyrighted. (2019, 1 29). Được truy lục từ Copyrighted:

https://www.copyrighted.com/blog/copyright-infringement

Ellison, K. (2012). 99designs. Được truy lục từ 99designs: https://99designs.com/blog/tips/5-famous-

copyright-infringement-cases/

GRAHAM. (2017). The 10 Most Famous Copyright Cases In Photography. PIXSY.

JAAIMINO. (2015). MODERN DOG DESIGN VS TARGET AND DISNEY. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

Kennedy, R. (2011). Shepard Fairey and The A.P. Settle Legal Dispute. The Newyork Times.

KENTON, W. (2020). Copyright Infringement. Investopedia.

Purdue University. (không ngày tháng). Được truy lục từ Purdue University:
https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

The Fashion Law. (2019). Gigi Hadid is Being Sued – Again – For Posting a Copyright-Protected Image
of Herself on Instagram. The Fashion Law.

XCLUSIVE-LEE, INC. V. HADID, 19-CV-520 (PKC) (CLP) (Pamela K. Chen, United States District Judge 1
28, 2019).

13