Tag: photography

February 1, 2021 Copyright

Chicago area retailers sued over iconic David Bowie photo

Brian Duffy was an English photographer. He died in 2010 but the Brian Duffy Archive owns and enforces the copyright in his works. Defendants are small retailers around Chicago who developed and sold gift items alleged to appropriate one of Duffy’s well-known David Bowie photos. Who among us hasn’t wished for a Rebel Rebel Pouch or a Ziggy Stardust Koozie? Apparently not the Brian Duffy Archive. It has sued for copyright infringement.

Bowie photo

Plaintiff first noticed allegedly infringing works on Instagram and then chased down the defendant retailers who do business both online and through brick and mortar stores. Plaintiff filed the case in January and things are just getting underway. Here are some of the interesting issues that could arise in the litigation:

  • Registration timing issues – the photo was taken in 1973 but not registered in the U.S. until 2017.
  • Whether the photo was ever published before 1989 without a copyright notice. That could have placed it in the public domain.
  • Fair use – Are these uses transformative? Have they affected the market for the original work?

The Duffy Archive is certainly trying to keep defendants under pressure. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, maximum damages, costs and attorneys fees and anything else the court will give it.

Duffy Archive Limited v. The Found, Inc. et al., No. 21-cv-00181 (N.D.Ill., filed January 12, 2021)

About the author: Evan Brown is a technology and intellectual property attorney in Chicago. This post originally appeared on evan.law.

January 15, 2012 Contracts

Wedding photographer not responsible for risque photos of bride posted online

Bostwick v. Christian Oth, Inc., 2012 WL 44065 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. January 10, 2012)

Plaintiff bride logged onto her wedding photographer’s website and saw photos of herself wearing only underwear. She emailed an employee of the photographer, who promised to take the offending photos down. But they remained on the website even after plaintiff shared the online password with her family and friends.

So she sued the photographer for breach of contract, fraud and concealment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court threw the case out on summary judgment. Plaintiff sought review, but the appellate court affirmed.

Breach of contract

The court found that defendant was authorized by agreement to post the photos. Defendant owned the copyright in the photos and otherwise had the right to put the proofs online. Any demand by plaintiff that the photos be taken down did not serve to revoke any of defendant’s rights, as plaintiff never had the rights to make such a determination to begin with. Moreover, the court found that because the agreement between the parties had an integration clause which provided that any amendments had to be in writing, the subsequent communications between plaintiff and defendant’s employee did not serve to amend the contract. (This decision by the court is puzzling, as the communications about taking the photos down were apparently by email. Other New York courts have held emails sufficient to amend written contracts.)

Fraud and concealment

To have been successful on her fraud and concealment claim, plaintiff was required to show, among other things, that she reasonably relied on defendant’s statement that the underwear photos had been taken offline before she gave the password to her friends and family. The court found in favor of defendant on this point because plaintiff could have checked to see whether the photos were actually taken down before she allowed others to access the photos. What’s more, the court found that the failure to take the photos down was not “concealment” but merely an oversight.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

Despite its sympathy with plaintiff, and an acknowledgment that having others see the photos would be embarrassing and upsetting, the court found that plaintiff failed to establish a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress. This part of the case failed because plaintiff did not show that she had been exposed to an unreasonable risk of bodily injury or death. There was nothing in the record to cause plaintiff to fear that she was exposed to physical harm.

Scroll to top