From Petapixel:
A well-known insect photographer has filed a $2.7 million copyright infringement lawsuit against a pest-control company. He accuses the businesses of using his photos without permission on its website.
Alex Wild is the curator of entomology at the University of Texas-Austin, and his photos have been featured everywhere from the Smithsonian to National Geographic. He allows schools and non-profits to use his photos for free or at discounted rates, but he strictly enforces his copyright when it comes to for-profit uses.
Wild’s website states that his photos can generally be licensed for between $40 and $400 per image, and there are warnings about infringing upon his copyright. Wild shared his copyright enforcement strategy here at PetaPixel back in 2015.
Courthouse News Service reports that Wild filed a copyright infringement lawsuit last month in federal court against Innova Supply, which does business as Solutions Pest and Lawn.
Wild says that after he came across the company using 10 of his insect photos without permission on its website, he had a lawyer send a cease-and-desist letter in February 2017. After that letter was ignored, Wild’s attorney sent a second letter the following month.
. . . .
“I received your letter and did my research into it,” [pest control company CEO] Colander wrote. “It does look like one of our outsourced content writers was taking images off Google. Internally we have a company Shutterstock account and policy of using only that. I am working on getting them all removed.”
But when Wild checked the website months later in January 2018, he found that the 10 photos had not been removed. What’s more, he discovered another 8 of his images being used without permission.
. . . .
Wild then decided to sue the company, seeking statutory damages of $150,000 — the maximum allowed for photos registered with the US Copyright Office — for each of the 18 infringements for a total of $2,700,000.
Link to the rest at Petapixel
PG says indie authors should be careful with the artists they use for their covers.
Note that the photographer sued the company that used his images for commercial purposes, not the outsourced content creator that created the infringing advertisement.
Large commercial stock photo providers obtain licenses from photographers prior to accepting uploaded photos and, in turn, grant licenses to those who wish to use such photos. PG suggests asking cover artists what providers they use for stock photos and politely confirming that the artists have appropriate agreements in place to create, modify and use the stock photos for book covers for both ebooks and printed books. Some photo providers may have different licenses for electronic reproduction and printed reproduction and/or limit the number of printed copies of their photos that are produced without the purchase of an additional license.
As a serious amateur photographer, PG observes that the insect photos shown in the OP required both a high degree of skill and a great deal of patience to capture.
[pest control company CEO] Colander wrote. “It does look like one of our outsourced content writers was taking images off Google. Internally we have a company Shutterstock account and policy of using only that. I am working on getting them all removed.”
—
There’s a lot of fail here.
The CEO or the company’s lawyer could have emailed the “outsourced content provider” and told them to fix the problem forthwith.
Then, of course, not only was nothing done, but they added eight more pictures, even after being notified by the copyright holder. That’s not just asking for trouble, that’s “bring it on!”
Then, the Shutterstock account thing. What kind of exterminator has a company Shutterstock account? AND an internal policy regarding its use? AND outsources its advertising and doesn’t use the acount anyway?
The puzzle seems to be missing several pieces. Why bother to write a nice reply to the photographer at all, if they weren’t going to comply anyway?
Another good reminder to be careful about “outsourcing” and then washing your hands of all responsibility. “I just want to pay someone to do it,” is a common and understandable sentiment, but doesn’t really mesh well with legal realities when the person you hire isn’t as professional as they should be.
“Got images off Google.” SMH
this really bugs me
“Well-known insect photographer” is not a phrase you’re likely to encounter very often.
In 2018, everybody’s famous in some way, Straker.
Or some of us manage ‘infamous’. 😉
You know, first I thought when I saw the title was that he’d be suing them for endangering his profession… It’s, at the very least, ironic.
Take care.
And since you can’t always tell if a ‘stock’ anything doesn’t have other rights floating around, getting something custom made might be far cheaper in the long run.
Typing ‘insect’ into the DAZ3D site gives you spiders, wasps and other critters for under $20. Roll your own bug waving at potential customers and save.
And the photographer had the sense to copyright his images. That gives him much better suing rights, as I understand. Good for him – what did the company think, that he was going to go away? Hope he gets a pile of cash out of this.