Lawsuit Filed to Unmask Anonymous Penis Sender

Don’t Mess with Texas by Jamie from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Last week, Melody Lenox filed a lawsuit in Dallas County, Texas for a court order to determine who sent her a penis-shaped gummy candies via Dicks By Mail.

At first, this sounded like an extreme reaction. If someone spent $15 to send me candy via mail with a note that says “Eat a Bag of Dicks,” I’d probably laugh, and then eat them – because gummy candies are delicious. However, learning about the larger context of the situation, Lenox’s reaction seems reasonable.

The Bigger Story
Lenox is the head of human resources at Axxess Technology Solutions, a position that requires her to be the bearer of bad news to some employees. Prior to this unsolicited dick package, she allegedly had her car keyed and was the target of fake posts on Craigslist. She asserts that these acts are related.

In this context, pursuing a harassment lawsuit against the sender of these candies (assuming the same person(s) are committing these acts), makes sense. Ongoing acts like this are unacceptable.

What I suspect is happening in this case is Lenox filed a lawsuit against John Doe and then requested a court order to get the purchase information from Dicks By Mail. (Many companies have privacy policies that state they’ll protect your information unless they are required to provide it in response to a court order.) While it’s easy to key a car or post a fake Craigslist post anonymously, sending candy by mail requires a credit card, which will eventually lead to a real person – the suspected harasser.

Unmasking the Anonymous
Anytime you do something anonymously, be prepared to be unmasked. When you act anonymously online, there’s always a digital paper trail that shows the IP address of the internet connection used, the GPS location of your smartphone, the profile information of an anonymous website or social media profile, and in this case, the credit card information used for the transaction.

There have been plenty of situations where a person lost their job or found themselves in a lawsuit when their anonymous persona was unmasked. Using the internet is not an effective way to maintain your anonymity – unless you have mad skills in this area. (And if you have to question whether you have mad skills, you don’t.)

More about Dicks By Mail

Photo from Dicks By Mail

Dicks By Mail is a hilarious way to send a light-hearted sugar-filled message. The company does not endorse the use of their service to threaten or bully someone. If you receive Dicks By Mail it should only be for two reasons: “[S]omeone thinks you’re either a dick or wanted you to laugh!”

And they do caution people who come to the site with vindictive intent: If you are sending this with the intent to ruin someone’s day, then maybe it’s you who needs to eat a bag of dicks.”

In case you were wondering, yes, Dicks By Mail is a U.S.-based business, so if you want to stimulate the economy while telling your elected officials what you think of them, this may be a creative way to send a message (though, it may not be effective since they won’t know it came from a constituent).

The laws that apply to the internet are constantly evolving as the courts are encountering more internet-based problems. If you want to connect with me to keep up with my thoughts about social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Copyright License for Commissioned Art

“and the years have wings, detail” by Olivia Kirby from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

There are services that will print your photos and other artwork onto canvas – even in Walgreens. I recently heard of a situation where a customer commissioned an artist to create a portrait. The artist created the work and sent it to the customer as a JPG file, that the customer could use to get it printed onto paper or canvas. This may be a more efficient and cost-effective way for artists to create original pieces for customers.

The customer took the image to be printed on canvas, and the photo processor refused to do it without a release from the artist. I’d never heard of a printer requiring this, but the customer encountered this problem when they tried to use two different printers. To avoid such problems and delays in the future, the artist should provide a license with the JPG file for printing in case the customer is required to provide it.

Photo Processors and Copyright Infringement
Should photo processors be concerned about customers using their services to make unlawful copies of another person’s work? Probably not. I suspect a customer that comes in with a JPG to create one photo product is likely not committing copyright infringement. Of course, there’s an exception for art that is so well-known that a reasonable person would recognize the likelihood of infringement.

One way a photo processor could protect themselves from accusations of contributory copyright infringement would be to include a check box on the order form where the customer attests that they own or have permission to use the image in this way and indemnify the photo processor in the event of infringement lawsuit and with reimbursement for all related costs and damages. I know the company I use to print my custom t-shirts has this on their order forms.

License for Commissioned Work
This problem sounds like it’s easy to fix: the artist can add a licensing provision to the agreement that specifies upon payment in full, the customer will receive a JPG of the work and a license for how the customer may use it. That provision can specify that the artist retains ownership of the copyright and the customer may have the unaltered JPG printed on paper, canvas, and any other permitted medium for personal use (which may involve soliciting the services of a third party printer). That should hopefully be enough to satisfy the concerns of any printing service.

The artist may want to add other licensing terms, such as it’s a non-exclusive, paid-in-full, royalty-free license, whether the license is perpetual or time limited, how many prints the customer may make, and any other permissions or restrictions the artist wants to impose of their work. An intellectual property lawyer can provide more information about what provisions to include in such an agreement.

I was surprised to hear about this situation, especially if the customer only asked for one print. I would expect the order to be more extreme to raise a red flag for a printer, but on the other hand, I’m pleased to see printers being mindful about what they’re being asked to create. The laws and rights related to intellectual property are complicated and always situation-dependent. If you want to connect with me about your intellectual property rights as a consumer or an artist, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Using Movie Clips in your YouTube Videos

Wedding Crashers by Kurt Bauschardt from Flickr (Creative Commons license)

Some people incorporate clips from mainstream movies into their YouTube videos. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not be legal.

Movie Studio’s Rights
Whoever owns the copyright in the movie has the exclusive right to control where the work can be copied, distributed, displayed, performed, and what derivative works can be made from it. This applies to the whole film and clips of it. The copyright owner is also the only one who can come after someone for copyright infringement. So, if they don’t know or don’t care about what another person is doing with their work, that person will never get in trouble.

What about Fair Use?
The powers that wrote the Copyright Act understood that existing artwork inspire other artists to create new works. To that effect, they created the fair use provision of the copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 107 if you want to look it up).

The fair use law allows a person to use another’s work for the purpose of criticism, commentary, research, and teaching – often in ways that thoughtfully add to the existing work. The law provides four factors that the court may consider in determining whether a use is copyright infringement or fair use (which I turned into the handy mnemonic device PAIN), but these are merely points of consideration.

The fair use factors are not a mathematical equation to use to get a definite answer. The only way to know for certain if a use qualifies as fair use would be if there’s a lawsuit and the court makes a ruling on the matter. However, if the use of another’s work is transformative and doesn’t become a substitute for the original work in the market, there’s a good chance it’s fair use.

One way to avoid the issue about whether using a clip is copyright infringement or fair use, would be to get permission to use the clip by purchasing a license. Without this permission, there’s a risk that the copyright owner will order your video to be removed until the offending clip is removed.

Using a Movie Clip – Good Idea or Bad Idea?
If a client asked me about using a movie clip for a purpose other than criticism, commentary, as a teaching demonstrative, or an original compilation with other works, I’d challenge them to explain why they want to use that clip and what value it adds to their work. I’d also encourage them to at least do their homework on the copyright owner to see if they have a track record of going after people who use clips of their work without permission.

Ultimately, I respect my clients’ choices, but I try to help them make informed decisions about the risk they’re accepting when they use another’s work. Copyright and fair use situations are always complicated and always depend on the specific circumstances. If you want to connect with me and hear more thoughts about copyright, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Year-End Visit to the Accountant

Money Tunnel by Lomo-Cam from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Every business owner needs an accountant, and a good accountant is worth their weight in gold.

I’ve been saying that for years. Actually, I recommend visiting your accountant twice a year – once during tax season and once at the end of the year. And just to show I “eat my own dog food,” I wanted to share my experience seeing my accountant this fall.

Planning Ahead for Next Year’s Taxes
Visiting my accountant is a great way to begin the process of winding down the year. I brought him a copy of my Quickbooks. (I’m probably his only client who keeps their USB on a Star Trek keychain.) He did a quick review my books for the year to date, made sure everything is categorized properly, and he gave me an estimate of what I should expect to pay in taxes come next April. (I don’t get upset when I have to pay taxes. It means I made money.) I find it reassuring that my tax bill isn’t a big mystery looming in the future. With his estimate, I can budget in my expected tax bill starting December or January.

Avoid the Tax Season Insanity
When I meet with my accountant in November/December, we get to have a laid back conversation about my business for the last year and what’s on the horizon for the next year. This gives him a chance to provide more thoughtful advice since he’s not in the middle of the insanity of tax season. Meeting before the end of the year gives him a chance to give me any advice regarding an end-of-the-year spend-down or if I have a big purchase coming up, whether it matters which tax year it happens.

Connecting with a Fellow Entrepreneur
My accountant is also a fellow entrepreneur who meets with other entrepreneurs for a living. When I share my ideas for my business with him, he gives me suggestions from his own experience and from watching what’s worked for other clients.

I’m always happy to meet with my accountant and never flinch at paying his bill. If you haven’t scheduled your year-end meeting with your accountant, I strongly recommend it. If you don’t have an accountant for your business, get a referral from a trusted professional. Your accountant is your partner for your success.  If you want to connect with me and my thoughts about why every entrepreneur needs an accountant, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Getty Images Skirts $1B Lawsuit

Victory by Quinn Dombrowski from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Victory by Quinn Dombrowski from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Earlier this year, Getty Images was sued for $1 billion (yes, that’s billion) by photographer Carol Highsmith.

Getty Images had sent Highsmith a letter and a bill, claiming that she was using one of their images without buying the requisite license. (Getty’s known for doing this.) It turns out Getty sent her a bill for using an image that she had taken herself. In fact, Getty was selling licenses for thousands of her images. Highsmith responded by suing Getty for $1 billion for violating her rights under the Federal Copyright Act and state level laws related to licensing.

Highsmith donated over eighteen thousand images to the Library of Congress and made available to others to copy and display for free starting in 1988. Her claims were based on the fact that Getty used her work without attribution and added their own watermark. In my previous post about this case, you can see the math that shows that $1B is a reasonable amount to request for damages given the number of photos in question.

I previously wrote that this will be a fun case to watch, assuming it goes to trial and doesn’t end a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. But alas, it wasn’t meant to be.

The Court granted Getty and the other Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the federal claims, leaving on the state-level claims in the case. The Parties apparently came to an agreement amongst themselves, with a non-disclosure provision, and stipulated to having the remaining claims dismissed with prejudice (meaning Highsmith can’t file this lawsuit again for these claims). The dismissal also directs each side to be responsible for their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Judge Rakoff wrote that he will release a memorandum explaining his ruling “in due course.” I expect it will be an interesting read.

I feel for Highsmith. Not only did she feel like her rights were violated, but the Court disagreed with her and told her she had to pay her attorneys’ fees. That’s the risk a person runs when they pursue a lawsuit – the Court could say you’re wrong, and you had to pay possibly thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to get that answer.

So what does this mean for future cases that are similar to this? It’s hard to say, though it appears that the fact that Highsmith made her work available for public use impacted her argument that she had rights in the images in question. I don’t expect this to effect artists who retain their copyright rights and make their work available for free through Creative Commons and similar means. (Thank you to all the artists who do this. I am forever grateful for your generosity.)

There are a lot of issues that come into play surrounding photography, image rights, and copyright. If you want to chat more about these topics, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Choosing a Business Entity

"Leap" by Sabrina C from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

“Leap” by Sabrina C from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Just like you wouldn’t ask your plumber to change your car’s oil, don’t ask a lawyer what type of business entity you need. Ask your accountant.

What your Accountant Can Do
Anyone with access to their state corporation commission website can see the different types of corporations and limited liability organizations are available where they live. Determining which one is the ideal for your situation is best left to your accountant, an accountant who does business accounting. The tax code is too complex and has too many changes year-to-year for a regular person to navigate on their own. Get yourself an accountant which whom you can have a candid discussion about your current financial situation and your future plans, so they can tell you what’s the right business entity for you. What’s right for your friend, may not be the best plan of action for you.

And I’ve always said, a good accountant is worth their weight in gold. I’m happy to pay my accountant’s bill because handles the tax side of my business for me and he always answers my random questions.

How a Lawyer Can Help
A business lawyer can describe the differences between the types of corporations and LLCs, what it costs to file the documents in the state to start an entity, whether an annual report is required, and other legal obligations and suggestions accompany different business entities. If you have a limited budget, filing your documents with your state by yourself is one way to save on legal fees. If you can afford it, and you don’t want to take the time to do it yourself, you can hire a lawyer to do your filing for you and take care of the require publication.

Your lawyer can also create the documents that accompany the creation of a new business – bylaws, operating agreement, terms of service, and/or contract templates. They can also advise you about how to protect your intellectual property and the importance of maintaining your corporate veil. Even if you don’t need a lawyer to create your business entity, it’s pragmatic to bring your lawyer into the loop sooner than later, just to make sure you have your ducks in a row.

Being a business owner and running the business are two full-time jobs in one. As an entrepreneur, I sympathize with what my clients go through with the challenges of providing for their customers and managing the nuts and bolts of being a business owner. If you want to connect with me and my experience as a business owner, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

FTC Compliance Friendly Reminders

Praise by bark from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Praise by bark from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Bloggers, vloggers, and other social influencers frequently asked me about the rules regarding disclosure when partnering with companies and using affiliate links. With holidays (and therefore holiday gift guides) on the horizon, it seemed apropos to share some helpful reminder for how to comply with the FTC’s disclosure rules when you get free product or are compensated for providing a review.

It’s All About Transparency
The purpose of the FTC’s disclosure rules is transparency. When people consume content, they have a right to know whether the creator has a relationship with the company or product or whether it is 100% their independent opinion. Knowing that a person has a relationship with a company, which may or may not include financial compensation, will impact whether a person reads or view a post and how much weight or credibility to give it.

To comply with the transparency requirements of Federal law, social influencers must clearly and prominently label the content they were compensated to make as advertising to avoid misleading consumers.

Disclosure First
Many influencers put their notice that they were compensated for doing a post or that a post has affiliate links at the end of the content. This is likely insufficient to comply with the rules because consumers need to be informed before they form an opinion about a product that they’re reading a sponsored post or an ad.

In general, you should make a disclosure in the post itself and shortly before the reader receives the advertising message. The FTC recommends putting it in front of or above the ad’s headline. Additionally, the notice need to be clear and unambiguous language. To determine whether your disclosure complies with the FTC, consider your notice from the perspective of the reasonable consumer who’s seeing your content for the first time. Will he/she notice the disclosure statement and understand that they’re reading or seeing an ad?

The FTC says terms like “ad,” “advertisement,” or “sponsored advertising content” are likely to be understood but terms like “promoted,” or “sponsored by [XYZ]” don’t comply with the disclosure requirement because they could be interpreted as merely underwriting the content without influencing the statements made in it.

So what does this mean? If you write a review of a product that you got for free or got paid for writing the post about it, you have to disclose at the top of the post that you have a relationship with the company. If you use affiliate links, you have to clearly disclose those relationships as well, prior to posting the link. (In some circumstances, using the term “affiliate link” may be insufficient if the average consumer doesn’t know the difference between links and affiliate links. Yes, this happens – I recently attend a blogging conference where an attendee assumed that the terms “link” and “affiliate link” were interchangeable.)

Every Post, Every Platform
When you have a relationship with a company or are compensated for writing about a product, you have to disclose it to your audience every time you write about it – regardless of the platform it’s on or what device people use to access it. Every single time. (Yes, I know this is annoying, but it’s what the FTC requires.)

Disclosure is Everyone’s Responsibility
Everyone who is involved in the creation or distribution of native advertising should review the content to ensure that the required disclosure is present and that the material does not mislead the audience about the product or the relationship between the writer and the company. This includes middle men like ad agencies. If anyone is found to be in violation of the FTC rules about native advertising, they could be fined by the FTC – the company that created the product or service, the writer, and anyone in between who was involved – up to $16,000. That’s a stiff penalty for forgetting or refusing to disclose a relationship.

If you want to learn more about this topic, I recommend the FTC’s article, Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses. If you want to chat with me about these issues, like how to incorporate these requirements into website terms of service or contracts with third party content creators, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Someone Posted a Photo of Me Online Without Consent

Photographer by Robert Cooke from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Photographer by Robert Cooke from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

People come to this site almost every day with questions about whether someone can post their picture on the internet without obtaining consent. Some people even ask if it’s a crime or whether they can sue.

Sue for what? Which of your rights have been violated?

Of course, each situation must be evaluated on its merits. It’s possible that a person is concerned with an intimate photo, a photograph that was taken in a bathroom, or circumstances where they are being harassed. I’m not saying that there aren’t situations where a person’s rights may have been violated; however, the frequency with which I get these questions makes me wonder whether most of these people have a legitimate legal concern or merely hurt feelings.

No Expectation of Privacy in Public
Remember, in the U.S., there is no expectation of privacy in anything you do in public (exceptions of course for places like bathrooms, confessionals, etc.). So, if someone snaps a photo of you that is less than flattering, and they post it on the internet, as long as they are not violating your rights, there’s nothing you can do about it.

Maybe they took a photo of you not putting your shopping cart away, walking around with your skirt tucked into your underwear, or texting while driving. I think there are much more important things to talk about in general and definitely that are worth of documenting permanently online; however, it’s not illegal. Just like it is not illegal to be stupid, it is not illegal to post stupid things online. The internet is full of stupid.

So What Do You Do?
Well, if you truly believe that you’ve been the victim of a crime or that your rights have been violated, contact the police or buy an hour with a lawyer to review your situation. You may be in a situation where your legal rights have not been violated but the posting itself and violates the terms that apply to the site where it was published. In that case, reporting the image to the website administrators may be sufficient to get it removed.

If it is purely a situation where you are merely angry or upset, and the person won’t remove the image when asked, let it go. If you’re embarrassed by your behavior, don’t do it again. If you’re in a situation where the image shows up if someone Googles your name, you can try to bury it by manipulating the search algorithm. Hopefully it’s not a situation where you screwed up so badly that the image or situation is going to dominate the search results for years to come.

On the Flip Side
If you’re thinking about snapping a picture of someone, check your motives. If you’ve taken a picture and you have the impulse to share it online, double and triple check your motives. What are the benefits of sharing this image? Are you being vindictive? If the situation were reversed, would you want an image of you in a similar situation posted? What if the person in the picture was your parent or significant other – would you post it then?

The person in the photo isn’t the only one at risk of losing face. Do you want to be the jerk who not only took this photo, but also shared it? You could harm yourself as well as the other person.

What is socially inappropriate and what is illegal are often two drastically different standards. My rule of thumb for this situations is the same: Think before you act. Think before you post. If you want to talk more about internet privacy or social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

What’s Up with YouTube Pulling Ads from Videos?

Speak No Evil by Robert Young from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Speak No Evil by Robert Young from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

In the last week, several people have posted that YouTube pulled the ads from their videos because their content wasn’t “advertiser-friendly.”

What’s Advertiser-Friendly Content?
According to YouTube policies, ads can only be run on content that’s all-ages appropriate. “It has little to no inappropriate or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata (such as in the video title). If the video does contain inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain (not offend or shock).”

According to YouTube, you can’t run ads against content that contains the following:

  • Sexually suggestive content;
  • Violence
  • Profanity or vulgar language
  • Harassment
  • Promotion of drugs
  • Sensitive subjects – including, war, political conflicts, natural disasters, and tragedies

If a user repeatedly posts videos that violate this policy, YouTube may suspend monetization on your whole channel. This could be problematic for content creators who make a living in part from their YouTube channel(s).

Their Site, Their Rules
Reading the YouTube rules, it’s ok to create and post content that violates some of its advertiser-friendly guidelines, but not make money from it.

And don’t even think about trying to argue that YouTube is violating your First Amendment right to free speech. It’s their site so they make the rules. They’re not stopping you from creating and publishing content on your own forum, just setting the rules for their platform.

Compare this to a shopping mall. They control who can sell wares and what behavior is appropriate. If you break the rules – by screaming or walking a body bag through the food court (not that I’ve done that) – you can be asked to leave or even banned for a period of time. Likewise, if you scream obscenities on the street, the police might be called and you could get a ticket for disturbing the peace.

So, What’s Changed?
It appears that not much has changed on YouTube. The policy regarding advertiser-friendly content hasn’t changed, but rather how it’s enforced. Before, if a video violated this rule, they would merely turn off the monetization feature, and you may not notice the difference unless you checked your Video Manager. Now, YouTube is sending an email notice when they turn off monetization.

I went back and reviewed the law firm’s YouTube channel. I run ads on most videos, but I haven’t made a cent from YouTube. There’s only one video on which monetization was turned off. My other videos where I may occasionally swear and/or mention sexual content like “revenge porn” are still monetized. (Not that I expect to make money from my videos, but you never know.)

If you have an internet-based business that relies on another platform to make money, be sure you read the site’s terms of service before you design your business model around it. (Remember, there’s a good chance the site can change the rules at any time.) If you want to talk more about internet or social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

Turnabout is Fair Play – Getty Sued for $1B for Copyright Violations

The Trees are Laughing at Us by daspunkt from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

The Trees are Laughing at Us by daspunkt from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Getty Images is known for sending letters to people suspected of using their images without purchasing a license. These demand letters essentially say, “By using our image, you’ve agreed to pay for a license. Pay $XXX by this date or we will sue you.”

They may have started the trend of other photographers sending similar demand letters when people use their images without permission. (I’ve sent these type of letters and counseled clients who have received them – usually from pulling images from a Google Image search without verifying that they had permission to use it.)

Getty sent such a letter to documentary photographer Carol Highsmith, claiming that she was violating their terms for using an image. Here’s the catch – it was a photograph that Highsmith took herself and previously shared with the Library of Congress to allow free use of her work by the general public. Highsmith has shared tens of thousands of images with the public through the Library of Congress since 1988.

Highsmith learned that Getty is claiming copyright rights to thousands of her images work and demanding payment for licenses, often without attribution to her, and adding “false watermarks” to the images. She filed a $1,000,000,000 (that’s $1B with a “B”) copyright infringement lawsuit against these agencies for the “gross misuse” of 18,755 of her photographs.

That’s a lot of photographs.
I hope they have good insurance.

But $1B?! Really?!
Actually, yes. In this case, suing for $1B makes perfect sense.

A party who adds or removes a watermark from a photo to avoid detection for copyright infringement can be fined up to $25,000 per image in addition to other financial damages for copyright infringement.
$25,000/image x 18,755 images = $468,875,000

And if a party is found to have violated this law in the last three years – which Getty has – the complaining party can ask for triple the damages.
$468,875,000 x 3 = $1,406,625,000

Looking at this, it’s easy to see how easy it is for Highsmith to reasonably request over $1B in damages. She’s also requested a permanent injunction to prohibit future use of images by Getty and the other Defendants and attorneys’ fees.

You can read the full complaint filed by Highsmith against Getty in New York Federal Court here.
So far, Getty claims they will defend themselves “vigorously.”

This could be a fun case to watch. If this case doesn’t go to trial (and most cases don’t), I hope the settlement isn’t kept completely secret behind a non-disclosure agreement. One of the recommendations I make to anyone who is a professional creative is determine in advance how you want to respond when your work is used without your permission and plan accordingly. For many people, it’s not if their work is stolen, but when.

There are a lot of issues that come into play surrounding photography, image rights, and copyright. If you want to chat more about these topics, you can contact me directly or connect with me on TwitterFacebookYouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

EDIT: The previous version of this post stated that Highsmith released her work to public domain. My apologies. Highsmith retains the copyright in her work, but allows others to freely use it through the Library of Congress.