Green family responds to potential lawsuit over Christina's picture

KVOA ^ | Feb 14, 2011 4:09 PM | KVOA

[Brown Deer]

TUCSON -- A photo of the youngest victim in the January 8th shooting is at the center of an ever-growing controversy. For many of you, the picture of Christina-Taylor Green, sparked heartfelt emotion of this horrible tragedy.

The photo given to News 4 the night of the shooting by Christina's parents was originally taken by Tucson Photographer Jon Wolf. He is now threatening to sue KVOA News 4 and other members of the media saying the use of the photo violates his copyright.

[Brown Deer]

another copyright lawsuit.

[TigersEye]

That’s rather petty of Mr. Wolf under the circumstances.

[clee1]

another azzhat trying to cash in.....

[digger48]

Did the Greens pay him to take the photo?

Doesn’t that make it theirs to do with as they please?

[raybbr]

Wait, did the parents pay him for the photo? If so, doesn’t it become their property to distribute?

[MsLady]

Copyrights gone wild. It’s true if a studio takes a picture of you, they own it. I tried to get a copy of a studio picture taken of my mother when she was a teenager. Now get this, the picture was taken in the late 30’s. I was not allowed to make a copy of it. I couldn’t get anyone to do it.

[Larry381]

It’s probably one of those deals where the parents have the rights to the photo except in case of commercial distribution in which case they are obliged to seek the permission of the photographer.

[TXnMA]

Another case for "SSS":

~~~~~~~~

Scan,

[Photo]'Shop,

Shut up...

'-)

[hinckley buzzard]

Yeah, copyrights are practically forever now. Didn't used to be that way but they changed the law in 1976.

[MsLady]

It’s like everything else, the laws on copyright are over the top and confusing.

[RobbyS]

He’s a toad trying to make a buck.

[Dan(9698)]

I have a picture I took with a Poloroid camera in 1962.

I took it to WalMart to have it copied.

They made me sign a statement that I took the picture and it wasn’t copyrighted.

[3niner]

Sounds like a good reason to never use professional photographers.

[susannah59]

Showing her picture on the news- a useage in which the parents are making no money- is commercial distribution?

Why don't we hear of these lawsuits constantly, then? Photographs made by professional photographers are used by news media on a daily basis!

[celtic gal]

I copyright ALL of my photos and to use one in any way without permission is a violation of my copyright. My cousin in France, is a professional photog and has had some of her work lifted. She found it on other blogs and websites.
If you do not want you pictures lifted do not post any of those special ones on line at all.
As to the photographer of the picture in question, he took the photo and all the metadata is in the picture and can prove it. While I agree it is rather insensitive of him at this time, the work is his and not that of AP or McClatchey or any other news organization that may try to claim it as theirs. He has a right to protect his work.

[Richard Kimball]

As a professional photographer, I have to say he's in the right, legally. Most photography contracts do not include the right to reproduce or distribute. When you get the photo taken, you purchase individual prints for personal use.

BTW, I don't do that. When I do a photo shoot, I charge a higher up front fee, and include a DVD with all the photos from the shoot and a right to reproduce the images.

There are a bunch of high schoolers that use my photos as their Facebook image. It's just my decision about doing business, but most photographers do it differently.

As to the other questions on the thread, if a celebrity appears in public, they do not have the right to stop photographers from taking their picture or from reselling the pictures. If there is a studio photo, though, the studio photographer has the right to control distribution.

[Brown Deer]

He has a right to protect his work.

The family most likely already paid him for the minute or two that it took him to click the camera and print the picture, so in your professional opinion, how much in addition to what he already received as compensation, do you think his valuable work is worth?

As to the photographer of the picture in question, he took the photo and all the metadata is in the picture and can prove it.

Interesting, that it doesn't look that way. It seems that the station was given a photo of the deceased child by the family and it was shared with the family's permission.

from the image posted by KVOA:

FILE - In this file photo provided by the Green family, Christina Green is shown. Green, 9, was killed at a political event with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz. on Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. Donated corneas from the young girl killed in the Arizona mass shooting have saved the eyesight of two children, her father told The Associated Press Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/Green Family, File) NO SALES

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[rlmorel]

Actually, not to pick nits, but having it in a newspaper IS a money making distribution, and with a sensational picture, even more so.

That said, it is hard to refer to the newspaper business as a moneymaker, but you get the idea.

[Brown Deer]

...having it in a newspaper IS a money making distribution...

KVOA is a television station, not a newspaper.

...and with a sensational picture...

What was so sensational about it?