Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Green family responds to potential lawsuit over Christina's picture
KVOA ^ | Feb 14, 2011 4:09 PM | KVOA

Posted on 02/14/2011 3:29:33 PM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at kvoa.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: copyrightlawsuit

1 posted on 02/14/2011 3:29:40 PM PST by Brown Deer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

another copyright lawsuit.


2 posted on 02/14/2011 3:31:07 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

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


3 posted on 02/14/2011 3:39:55 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

another azzhat trying to cash in.....


4 posted on 02/14/2011 3:40:05 PM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Did the Greens pay him to take the photo?

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


5 posted on 02/14/2011 3:43:46 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

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


6 posted on 02/14/2011 3:44:29 PM PST by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

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.


7 posted on 02/14/2011 3:48:33 PM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

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.


8 posted on 02/14/2011 3:52:23 PM PST by Larry381
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MsLady
Another case for "SSS":

~~~~~~~~

Scan,

[Photo]'Shop,

Shut up...

'-)

9 posted on 02/14/2011 3:58:44 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MsLady
Yeah, copyrights are practically forever now. Didn't used to be that way but they changed the law in 1976.
10 posted on 02/14/2011 4:02:07 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

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


11 posted on 02/14/2011 4:27:56 PM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

He’s a toad trying to make a buck.


12 posted on 02/14/2011 4:38:30 PM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MsLady

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.


13 posted on 02/14/2011 4:47:29 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Larry381

Sounds like a good reason to never use professional photographers.


14 posted on 02/14/2011 4:47:38 PM PST by 3niner (When Obama succeeds, America fails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Larry381
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!

15 posted on 02/14/2011 5:03:08 PM PST by susannah59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
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.
16 posted on 02/14/2011 5:14:39 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr; digger48
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.

17 posted on 02/14/2011 5:15:12 PM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal
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.

18 posted on 02/14/2011 5:44:40 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: susannah59

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.


19 posted on 02/14/2011 5:48:17 PM PST by rlmorel (Now I have to change this tagline: "Weakness is provocative." Donald Rumsfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
...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?
20 posted on 02/14/2011 5:57:01 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

I actually wasn’t talking about this case specifically, but in general. I think the concept is the same. News media, whether print or television, must sell itself. It has to distinguish itself in the eyes of consumers, to differentiate, and they do that by being as sensational as they can. This in particular is not a sensational image (again I was speaking generally) but it is true that the more spectacular the image, the more it sells that media.


21 posted on 02/14/2011 6:00:58 PM PST by rlmorel (Now I have to change this tagline: "Weakness is provocative." Donald Rumsfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

And, I do apologize...the way I wrote it originally was unclear.


22 posted on 02/14/2011 6:08:53 PM PST by rlmorel (Now I have to change this tagline: "Weakness is provocative." Donald Rumsfeld)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

I had the same experience. It’s crazy.


23 posted on 02/14/2011 7:21:53 PM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
The issue at the very bottom of your post about the Copyright being the AP is what I bet is at the root of this.The AP is copyrighting their story to include the photo but the AP did not take that photo, they used it with the permission of the family. The AP should have, by the photo, said courtesy photo. I think this is what has the photographer upset..he is not even being given credit for the photo as a “courtesy” photo. When an article was in our local paper about my husband and a photo was asked for I provided one I took, which was quite a good one and the paper at the very least gave me credit by stating that the photo was a courtesy photo and did not claim it as theirs. The comment at the last of your post implies that the AP somehow has the "rights" to that photo.
It does not matter that the parents paid for the picture or pictures taken by this photographer. Yes it is their daughter but the photographer took the picture and the artistic character of the photo is his work and he is protecting it. He would have been smart to put on the photo that it may not be reproduced without permission. I always state that on my photos. The reason for that is simple..if someone has that photo and then submits it to say a national magazine and tries to take credit for it and I see it I can challenge it. Being that I can prove by way of metadata that I took it, with date location and all the info about the photo ( technical stuff) I would win in a court case. Why should someone make $$ off my work not their own? This, I would suspect is what is annoying the photographer who took this photo in the first place.
It is sad that this whole thing is in the public arena and causing this family such distress.
24 posted on 02/14/2011 8:49:28 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 3niner
That is ridiculous. A photographer, be (s)he pro or amateur should be able to protect their artistic work. The photo in question is not just a snapshot. It was taken in a studio. The photographer has as much right to protect his work as the author of a book has. I wonder if the photo shown had been one shot by this little girl's father, would the news story say the photo was a "courtesy" photo?
25 posted on 02/14/2011 8:54:02 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball

Well said. I am an amateur at it but pretty good nonetheless. My nephew is a professional and has written books. My cousin in France also is professional level but has no studio yet due to 4 children the youngest 2. Her work is fabulous. She has seen her work lifted and has been able to prove it. She has to protect her work, you yours and me mine. You feel comfortable giving advance permission to use your work by those who have used your service. I was more than annoyed when someone asked for some photos I took of their establishment, asked if they could use them and I said yes..but what they did was show them to someone else who shot the same scenes in nearly the same way..I had to check to make sure someone was not getting credit for my work in a publication.
It is a funny thing how people make light of photo theft.


26 posted on 02/14/2011 9:00:02 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

The balance of this photographer’s “payment” for snapping this poor girl’s picture should be a good swift kick in the ASS!


27 posted on 02/14/2011 9:04:16 PM PST by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal
I look at this as I do the 9/11 Mosque. Sure, they have the right....but it is not the right thing to do.

This photographer is being a jerk. He took the picture as a nice little work-for-hire portrait to go in a wallet. It wasn't like he took a photo of the exploding Hindenburg.

What he should have done is donate (relinquish?) the copyright and ask....nicely...if he they could simply name him as the photographer.

This is BAD publicity and he'll be lucky to keep his business.

28 posted on 02/14/2011 9:31:35 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Follow up.

I did a Google search and found the photographer's blog. He has written an apology:

Regarding Christina Green's portrait...

For those who have been following the coverage of the story of Christina Green's portrait, the following was released to media outlets today.

My actions regarding this matter have been misunderstood and sadly mischaracterized. My intent from the beginning always has been to use the proceeds from my creative work to make a charitable donation in Christina Green’s memory. I sought and received the Green family’s approval to do so. At no time did I intend to profit personally from this tragedy.

As a result of the mischaracterizations in the news coverage and the resulting community outcry, and in the hope of saving the Green family from further association with this matter, I have chosen to halt filing legal action in the hopes of reaching negotiated settlements with those that have used this image. I will turn the proceeds collected to date over to a charity in Christina’s honor. I truly and deeply regret the additional distress this matter has placed on the Green family, and I apologize for that. - Jon Wolf


29 posted on 02/14/2011 9:40:59 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
In all fairness to the photographer, see what happens if you use an AP photo without paying for it and it comes to their attention.

The photographer is being a jerk, though.

There are times when money isn't worth it. I happened to take a photo of a baseball coach one time. It ended up being his last game, as he died of a heart attack that summer. The school put up a plaque at the ball park and had an engraving of the photo done as part of it. Recently, a friend of mine passed away from a brain tumor. His family had used my services several times before. A few weeks before he passed away, his wife called and asked me to take photos of him with his family and grandchildren, a last photo that he wanted in his casket with him. I just can't imagine charging someone for doing that.

I may end up passing on some money, but people who use me generally won't use another photographer. I don't have customers. I have friends I do business with.

30 posted on 02/14/2011 9:51:10 PM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal
you never answered my question... in your professional opinion, how much in addition to what he already received as compensation, do you think his valuable work is worth?
31 posted on 02/14/2011 10:21:44 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

be careful, you might get sued for copying his blog. ;-)

© Jon Wolf, M.Photog.,Cr.


32 posted on 02/14/2011 10:33:47 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: digger48

“.....Did the Greens pay him to take the photo?

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

No. I’m a part time photographer. I retain ownership of every image I shoot. If I sell you prints you own the prints, but not the right to reproduce them. This is common practice.

However, this guy is a jerk!! Talk about petty, mean, nasty, greedy, guile, he has it all.


33 posted on 02/14/2011 11:04:32 PM PST by Islander7 (There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

Let’s see:

An individual who attempts to protect his copyright in a product he created is a “jerk”, but the media corporations which appropriated his property, slapped THEIR copyrights on his work, and broadcast it around the world in the course of operating their franchises are “just doing business” and can safely brush off his claims when he seeks compensation from them?

Fine. You deserve to be ripped off in the same manner, whenever these entities “just do business” at your expense. For example, when the “Too Big To Fail” banksters vandalize the land records system in the name of “efficiency” in processing mortgages, and the title to your home becomes clouded as a result: suck it up, buddy. Don’t be a jerk and complain about it. Just roll with the flow, grin and bear it.


34 posted on 02/14/2011 11:20:02 PM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
An individual who attempts to protect his copyright in a product he created is a “jerk”, but the media corporations which appropriated his property, slapped THEIR copyrights on his work, and broadcast it around the world in the course of operating their franchises are “just doing business” and can safely brush off his claims when he seeks compensation from them?

Under the circumstances, yes. I can agree with going after the media, but the family? You support that? Not me, I have more class, thanks.

35 posted on 02/15/2011 12:40:35 AM PST by Islander7 (There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 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.

It would depend on the contract, of course.

As for this photographer, unless he wins a huge award he should probably start looking for a new day job. The negative publicity will keep customers away for quite a while.

36 posted on 02/15/2011 3:27:00 AM PST by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal
Sorry, not with you at all. Whatever rights you might think you have, the onerous requirements that you (photogs) and the idiotic duplication services are putting on us (signed forms, releases, lack of trust etc.) are making me and others avoid your services.

In my opinion, you should have copyright for all works where you have controlled either through ownership, public rights, or contract of services all subjects of the photo. In other words you have paid the subjects to be in the photo.

When I, as a private individual come in to your store and pay you for the photo, I have reimbursed you for the wear, tear and rent of the equipment you used and for your artistry. The photo should be mine.

If you don't agree, then you can leave your SLR where the sun don't shine. And by that of course, I mean your dark room ;-)

37 posted on 02/15/2011 7:08:11 AM PST by mwilli20 (BO. Making communists proud all over the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

couples never read the fine print of wedding photographers.

They own the commercial exploitation of the couples pictures.


38 posted on 02/15/2011 8:38:37 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Ask him. What I might feel is right for my efforts and time etc may not be what he might charge or feel is right.


39 posted on 02/15/2011 9:42:21 AM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

I agree. And an earlier post reflects that view. I also said I think it is rather a sad thing this in the public arena and causing this family such distress.

My other issue, quite apart from how we all feel for the family, is the notion that photos and work done in professional studios are somehow not as important for copyright needs as say are books, movies etc...Photographers have every right to copyright their work and to require permission prior to copying and distribution.

The family released the picture of their child to be shown in TV and it was picked up by print media. The photographer did not grant permission for the redistribution of his work. It would have been the kinder thing on his part, under these circumstances, to do as you suggested and simply ask that when the photo is printed in the papers or magazine that he be give credit for the photo.


40 posted on 02/15/2011 10:03:08 AM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

I agree. And an earlier post reflects that view. I also said I think it is rather a sad thing this in the public arena and causing this family such distress.

My other issue, quite apart from how we all feel for the family, is the notion that photos and work done in professional studios are somehow not as important for copyright needs as say are books, movies etc...Photographers have every right to copyright their work and to require permission prior to copying and distribution.

The family released the picture of their child to be shown in TV and it was picked up by print media. The photographer did not grant permission for the redistribution of his work. It would have been the kinder thing on his part, under these circumstances, to do as you suggested and simply ask that when the photo is printed in the papers or magazine that he be give credit for the photo.


41 posted on 02/15/2011 10:03:28 AM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I know what you mean. We had a problem with our wedding photographer. We ended up paying him $600 for all of the negatives. I’ve never used a professional photographer since.


42 posted on 02/15/2011 2:04:34 PM PST by 3niner (When Obama succeeds, America fails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal
A photographer, be (s)he pro or amateur should be able to protect their artistic work.

True, and people who want photographs taken have the right to protect their own image (and images of their families). The easiest way to handle this is to take your own pictures, and keep control of those images. They may not look as good, but it's easier to avoid uncomfortable situations.

43 posted on 02/15/2011 2:12:27 PM PST by 3niner (When Obama succeeds, America fails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

Just as an aside to the original topic, I took a look at our local paper today with regard to photos. There were some with some stories that were taken by the local paper photographer. Then on the sports page there was an action picture along with the story and under the action picture it said Associated Press which means that not only the article was written by someone from the AP and the picture was taken by someone from the AP. There was another action photo on the sports page and the name of the photographer was beneath the photo in the article. So my hunch is that that the photo of the little girl might have said Associated Press beneath the photo and that is what has the dander of the actual photographer in arms..just a hunch and without going back to look at articles I can’t say that with certainty only suggest that as a cause for this uproar.


44 posted on 02/15/2011 2:26:31 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson