To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`ImageRights International, Inc. (igibson@onellp.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86388700 - IMAGERIGHTS - N/A
`
`12/19/2014 12:33:10 PM
`
`ECOM115@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`Attachment - 11
`Attachment - 12
`Attachment - 13
`Attachment - 14
`Attachment - 15
`Attachment - 16
`Attachment - 17
`Attachment - 18
`Attachment - 19
`Attachment - 20
`Attachment - 21
`Attachment - 22
`Attachment - 23
`Attachment - 24
`Attachment - 25
`Attachment - 26
`Attachment - 27
`Attachment - 28
`Attachment - 29
`Attachment - 30
`Attachment - 31
`Attachment - 32
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.   86388700
`
`           
`
`MARK: IMAGERIGHTS
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  
`       IAN GIBSON
`  
`       ONE LLP
`         4000 MACARTHUR BLVD
`           NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2558
`    
`   
`
`*86388700*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`APPLICANT: ImageRights International, Inc.
`
`  N/A
`
`    
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :       
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`   
`
`igibson@onellp.com
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
`COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 12/19/2014
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`Search of the Office Records
`The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that
`would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
`
`However before this application can be approved for publication the applicant must address the following informalities.   
`
`INFORMALITIES
`
`New Drawing Required
`
`Applicant must submit a new drawing showing the ™ symbol deleted from the mark; this matter is not part of the mark and is not registrable.  See
`
`TMEP §807.14(a).   
`
`Recitation/Classification of Services Unacceptable
`
`The recitation of services is unacceptable as indefinite because “perform internet searching and research services to identify uses of certain
`images on commercial websites” is unclear and may be misclassified.   The applicant must further specify the nature of these services.
`
`The applicant may adopt the following recitation, if accurate:  
`
`Intellectual property watch services, namely, perform internet searching and research services to identify uses of certain images on commercial
`
`websites; legal services, namely, researching, identifying and managing copyright infringement claims, in International Class 45.  
`
`TMEP §1402.01
`
`An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the services.  37 C.F.R.
`§2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.
`
`ID Manual
`
`For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S.
`
`Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html.   See TMEP §1402.04.   
`
`The applicant is advised that the brackets and parentheses shown in the identification manual and/or in the suggested identification are in the
`
` 
`  
` 
`  
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
`

`

`nature of directional signals, the significance of which is explained in the introduction to the Identification Manual.  Parentheses and brackets
`
`should not be included in the actual identification of goods or recitation of services adopted by the applicant.   
`
`Disclaimer
`
`Applicant must disclaim the wording “IMAGERIGHTS” because it merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature,
`purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a);
`DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl
`
`& Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  
`
`Specifically, the term RIGHTS is defined as the authority to perform, publish, film, or televise a particular work, event, etc.  The term IMAGE is
`defined as “a visible impression obtained by a camera, telescope, microscope, or other device, or displayed on a computer or video screen.”  
`The mark merely describes the subject area for the legal services and also the function or purpose for the internet searching and research
`services.  Specifically, the applicant seeks to help its clients protect authority over the visible impressions obtained by their cameras.  The
`examining attorney has attached third party Internet evidence as well as dictionary evidence in support of the determination of descriptiveness.
`An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace.  See
`Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc. , 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825
`(TTAB 1983).  A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove
`the disclaimed matter from the mark.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP
`
`§1213.  
`
`Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in
`relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384
`(C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
`
`In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a
`unique, incongruous, or non-descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services.
`
`If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark.  See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d
`1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).
`
`Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “IMAGE RIGHTS” apart from the mark as shown.
`
`For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application
`System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.
`
`Prior Pending Application
`
`If applicant owns U.S. Registration No. 3888230, then applicant must submit for the application record a claim of ownership of this registration. 
`See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  See the attached copy of the registration.  See TMEP §812.  
`
`Applicant may use the following format to claim ownership of the registration:
`
`Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 3888230.
`If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. 
`
`/Kathryn E. Coward/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`Law Office 115
`(571)-272-9468
`Kathryn.coward@uspto.gov
`
`All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a
`response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-
`.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in
`this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.   See TMEP §§705.02,
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`709.06.
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. 
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`

`

`Pfint:Dec1E,2D14
`
`77?25532
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`22225532
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`IMAGERISHTS.CCN
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`3888238
`
`Date Registered
`2010f12f0?
`
`Type of Mark
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`
`Attorneyr of Record
`
`image
`G & S: Global
`100 101.
`US
`I0 042.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`registry for storing and mapping uploaded photographs, works of visual
`arts and other images which are searchable by image recognition
`software and used for locating. comparing and retrieving identical
`andfor similar images.r both in the registry and over the global
`network. First Use: 2009f01/31. First Use In Commerce: 2009f0Tf31.
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`ImageRights International, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA_#40T 2100 N.
`Beachwood Drive Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 90068
`
`GoodsfServioes
`
`Filing Date
`2088/84/28
`
`Amended Register Date
`2010/09/21
`
`Examining Attorney
`OLANDRIA, WARREN L.
`
`

`

`Print: Dec 13, 2014
`
`77115532
`
`Douglas Q. Hahn
`
`

`

`ImageRights.com
`
`

`

`ntto/fmm1aw harvard edu/facult martin/art 1aW/1maqe nqhts htm
`
`12/18/2014 11 01 22 AM
`
`Harvard Law School
`Art Law
`
`,
`
`-
`
`Image Rights
`
`Moral Rights
`Resale Right
`
`The law gives artists certain rights in their creations. William Fisher, HTheories of Intellectual Property," in Stephen Munzer, ed., New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory ofProperty (Cambridge University Press. 2001)
`is recommended for those who want to explore a sophisticated introduction to why the law recognizes property interests in intellectual products. These interests can be economic or non-economic, personality rights.
`
`Copyright
`Basics
`
`opyright Crash Course: University ofTexas. Includes very usefiil "Rules ofThumb" developed at UT.
`1
`< Copyright: an overview fiom the Cornell Legal Information Institute
`Note particularly the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), fig, 106A, m, and Q ofthe Copyright Act
`- Berne Convention [Roam around in this site; don't feel obliged to read the Whole thing]
`c U.S. Comight Offic , ausefiil site for basic information.
`a A very extensive online collection of intellectual property laws is maintained by WTPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization.
`Worksrforrhirc
`
`for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)
`c Communi
`I The Government Wants Its WPA Art Back. See also Jeanette Hendler, The W.P.A. Artists Pro'ect.
`
`Originality
`. Bridgeman Art Librm
`1 Barry G. Szczesny, American Association ofMuseums, Government Afi‘airs Counsel, April 1999 American Association ofMuseums Annual Meeting Presentation on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation.
`< The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp.= 25 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) LEXIS l WESTLAW)
`1 Bridgeman Art Librag v. Corel C019, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
`(LEXIS l WESTLAW)
`
`Web Rights
`1 Kelly v. Ariba Sofi Corp; [See also http://wwwdittocomf]
`u Art, Copyright, and the Web Bibliography compiled by Jeanette Mills and Cynthia Caci (links updated August 2001)
`
`Appropriation art
`Raphael's Judgment ofParis (c1515) triggered one ofthe most sustained and substantial sequences ofcopying and courier-copying in Western Art. Raphael's painting became lost but his employee= Marcantonio Raimondi,
`made an etched copy of it which survived. A few years after the copy was made, the general demand for copies ofthe original Work was so great that Marco Dente da Ravenna made a slavish copy ofit. Three centuries later,
`Manet used Dart ofRaohael/Raimondi's original as the basis for his work Le Déieuner Sur L'Herbe. Manet used the group ofthree figures in the bottom right-hand corner ofthe original Work as the heart ofhis new work.
`
`

`

`
`
`hm: fM/ww 16W harvard edu/facult mama/an 1aW/1maqe nqhts htm 12/18/2014 11 01 22 AM
`OI mree figures III the normal right-hand corner OI me Onglnfll WOTK as the near! OI [115 HEW WDI'K,
`IVIBDEK USDO pan OI Kapnaeunalmonoi's ong'mai as me M515 IOI' ms WOI'K Le JJC CHUCK but L'HCTDE. IVIBHCE used we
`updating their clothing to contemporary garb and adding the naked women. Nearly a century later, Picasso paraphrased Manet's work in an extensive series ofpaintings, drawings, sculptures and linocuts he executed between
`1959 and 1961, Les De'euners. How original were Raphael's imitators? See Hm Lydiate's review ofDear Images atArtquestorg.uk.
`Grant Wood's iconic American Gothic is perhaps the most ofien copied modern American work. It. has been treated referentiallv, educationally, commercially, pornographically (perhaps), in parody, and combinations ofthe
`above.
`Is appropriation inevitable for the modern artist? For one artistic justification read Negativland's Tenets ofFree Appropriation on the Negativland [P page.
`
`
`
`Art Rogers
`Photograph:
`Puppies
`1980
`
`JefiKoons
`Wood painted sculpture:
`String ofPuppies
`1998
`
`Perhaps the classic case ofappropriation art in recent years is Rogers v. Koons, 751 F. Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (LEXIS 1 WESTLAW ) afl'd 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) tLEXlS 1 WESTLAW ) JelfKoons’
`
`commissioned sculpture ofArt Rogers’ postcard was adjudged a violafion ofRogers’ copyright. Blue puppies! See commentary fi'om Mary Ann Fergus, Derivative Works And CopyLight: Painting from Another's Photograph,
`for the American Sociefl ofPortrait Artists. But Annie Leibovitz’s suit against Paramount for stealing the basic idea ofher Vanity Fair cover photograph ofthe pregnant Demi Moore runs a close second. See Leibovitz v.
`Paramount Pictures Com“ 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998) for the original and Pregnant Men for the parody.
`William M. Landes, The Arts and Humanities in Public Life: Copyright Protection and Appropriation Art discusses Rogers v. Koons, 751 F. Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), among others.
`William M. Landes, Copyright, Borrowed Images and Appropriation Art: An Economic Approach, (December 2000). University ofChicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 1 13 , contains a more extended
`analysis from a law and economic approach.
`
`Britain, which lacks afiair use defense, appropriation artists have an even harder row to hoe. See Simon Stokes piece in the Art Newspaper, The right to copy in the UK: the public domain and free flow of ideas are under
`threat, commenting on Glenn Brown’s Turner Prize entry “The Loves ofShepherds 2000”.
`
`
`
`Parody
`
`The exhibit and website Illegal Art: Freedom ofExpression in the Corporate Age argues that copyright law is inhibiting rather than encouraging artistic innovation. Their links to video and visual art contain interesting
`examples ofartists pushing the boundaries oflegal restrictions, usually from the viewpoint ofparody.
`Other parody links:
`Cartoonist Kieron Met Sued By Starbucks
`The Evolution Control Committee's parody of CBS Evening News
`Another CBS Digital Furor
`Law Suits Involving Fakes And Celebrity Photographs
`MasterCard threatens rec.hurnor.fi1nny over satire [rec.humor.firnnvl
`'Photoshopping' gows into a subculture art form
`Parody and Fair Use
`That‘s Not Funny! - The Limitations on Parody as a Defense to Copyright Infringement in International Forums
`Stormtroopers - The rescue ofElian
`
`
`
`Moral Rights
`
`

`

`
`
`nt‘lu fM/ww law harvard edu/facull memo/an law/imaqe nqhts htm 12/18/2014 11 01 22 AM
`
`Thomas F. Cotter, Pragmatism, Economics and the Droit Moral, 76 N.C. L. Rev. 1 (1997) provides adecent introduction h) this topic. Also useful might be file module on Respect and Integrity in Professor William Fisher's
`mini-course Intellectual Propm in Cyberspace 2000. The case ofNapier's Distorted Barbie is fiJn.
`Kant and Hegel provided the theoretical justification for an author's "moral right", but James MacNeill Whistler's refusal to provide Sir William Eden with a portrait ofhis wife and Eden's subseqth suit in 1989 provided
`the political impetus fiir France to pass legislation on the subject. France now has the strongest laws supporting the rights ofartists. For Whistler's own take on this case, see Eden versus Whistler: The Baronet and the
`Butterfly. A Valentine with a Verdict, Paris and New York, 1899 (reprinted by Notable Trials Library, 1997) Call Number: FRA 996 WHI78 1997.
`France recognizes four moral rights:
`I droit de divulgation, or right ofdisclosure;
`I the droit de repentir ou de ren'ait, or right to correct or withdraw works previously disclosed to the public;
`I the drolt de paternlte, or right ofattribution, which includes
`a right against misattribution,
`a right against nonattributio,
`0 right to publish anonymously or pseudonymously,
`0 right to void a promise to publish anonymously or pseudonymously;
`- and the limit au respect de l'oeuvre, literally "the right to respect ufllle work," usually translated as the right of integrity.
`How inalienable, non-waivable, and perpetual these rights are vary by country. The US only recognizes the last two, and those Weakly.
`The United States attempted to harmonize its copyright laws with those ofEuropean and other countries byjoining the Berne Convention and enacting the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). See especially 17 U.S.C.
`
`“m, 106A, and m. Cynthia Esworthy in the general counsel's office ofthe NBA provides a short introduction to US moral rights law in From Monty Python to Leona Helmsley: A Guide to the Visual Artists Rights Act.
`Check the sidebars as well. However, some assert that the US will have to expand its moral rights protections to achieve its alleged goal ofharmonizing its intollocmal property laws with those ofthe European Union. Soc
`Jowita Wysocka, Imposing Moral Rights on an Immoral System: An Analysis ofthe Further Legislative Reform Required for US. Compliance with the Berne Convention, Suffolk Journal ofHigh Technology Law (Spring
`2000).
`
`I Henry Hansmann & Marina Santilli, Authors' and Artists' Moral Rights: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis, 26 J. Legal Stud. 95 (1997)
`I Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 71 F. 3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995).
`The Video excerpt showing the misuse ofFrederick Hart's sculpture Ex Nihilo by Warner Bros. in me film The Devil's Advocate can be found m. This case used a copyright claim to settle a moral rights problem.
`The destruction ofDiego Rivera's mural Man at the Crossroads, commissioned for Rockefeller Center but oflensive to the patrons because ofits inclusion ofthe image ofLenin, predated any elfective moral rights statute. The
`PBS site Culture Shock has other interesting examples.
`Moral rights apply to a somewhat expanded list ofthe traditional fine arts. Alfred Stieglitz is now an artist but Giorgio Armani is not See Christine Magda (ID '00), Protecting Works ofFashion from Design Piracy
`(2000). See also Matthew Rimmer, Crystal Palaces: Copyright Law And Public Architecture. 14(1) Bond Law Review (2002).
`
`Resale Right (Droit de Suite)
`California is the only state to have a droit de suite statute [Ca1.Civ.Code § 986]. Summaries can be found in The Artist‘s Right to Share in the Resale ofArt by Ann Avery or The California Resale Royalties Act prepared by
`Greg Johnsen. Caslon Analytics Has a short summary ofdroit de suite in Analysphere, 18 June 2001.
`Jeffrey C. Wu, An Resale Rights and the Art Resale Market: A Follow-up Study, 46 J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 531 (1999) [available on Westlaw], written fiJI' Professor Merryman's art law course at Stanford, provides a
`good argument against the usefillness ofresale taxes for artists. See also
`
`- John L. Solow, An Economic Anal sis ofthe Droit de Suite (1991)
`I Martina Supper, An Analysis ofdroit de suite from a Law 8: Economics Perspective (10 August 2000)
`However, resale rights are common in Europe. A European Parliament and Council Direch've on the resale right for the benefit ofthe author ofan original work ofart is attempting to get all EU members to harmonize their
`laws by legislating such rights. The European Commission welcomed the adoption ofthe Directive on resale rights for the benefit ofthe authors oforiginal works ofart. European artists support the Directive. The trade and
`the government in the UK opposed to introducing such legislation, but the UK government has been forced to go with Europe, although not right away. Perhaps the support for droit de suite has to do with law's expressive
`fimcn'on. See
`
`- Lawrence Lessig, The Regulation of Social Meaning, 62 u. Chi. L. Rev. 943 (1995)
`- Cass R. Sunstein, On the Expressive Function ofLaw, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2021 (1996)
`
`

`

`httD f/www aohotoeditor com/2010110/08/asksan thinqr%E2Wo8U”/o9$simolesimadeeriqhtssexolanation/
`12/18/2014110615AM
`
`aPhotoEditor
`
`I uutltuliy
`designod
`websites for
`Phatogrupliers
`
`aP otoFolio
`
`Ask Anything — Simple Image
`Rights Explanation
`
`_m
`
`
`e zo @
`
`FormerArt Buyers and current photography consuitants Amanda osa Stone and stivanoe
` e have agreed to take anonymous questions ironi photographers and not orig g e their
`expert advice but put it out to a WldE range oi photographers. reps and art buyers to gathez a
`variety of opinions The gual with this column is to so1lcil honest questions and answers
`through anonymity.
`
`QUES'HON:
`1‘!“ coming across a pretty common problem {and finding a lot otmy peers are as
`welt) With the suoiects i photograph not understanding basic image copyright laws In
`the last three months I've had my copyrightinlnnged multiple times Or, a previous
`subject has asked for high resolution files assuming they have the right to use the
`images for marketing or advertising purposes when those rights were not a pan of our
`initial agreement
`in many cases, because l‘m still in the fledgling stages or my career, a lot of my
`clients, or subjects, are not well versed in how image licensing works Theretore, I
`don’t believe that they are purposetully trying to steal the images or use them
`inappropriately. I Just think they don’t know the rules. So, what I think would be really
`helptul is a simple, nun biased, explanation of how copyright fur photography works
`One that explains photographers ownership at their images, and more specifically
`why we own our images Must (lithe literature I've tned to find on the sutiiett is either
`A too complicated with dense legal terminology which bores me, and mostiikety will
`not be thoroughly understood by cltents Or, a documens that photographers have
`written up that are condescending, accusatory and controntationat
`I find these to be
`Just as bad, and alienate clients.
`So basically E‘in wondering it there is such a thing nut there, or maybe With your vast
`readership, something can be made that fairly,
`clearty and nicely says, “Thi
`is how photo images rights warts, this is the reason,
`and when in doubt please contact the photographer prior to using these images i
`
`
`
`D The Agent List
`. Photogaghy &
`Architecture
`
`D PhotogIaphy
`Consultant List
`
`A l=hoto Editor (APE) is
`edited by Rob Haggart, the
`former Direclur of
`Photography lor Men's
`Journal and Outside
`Magazine Contnbutors
`include fine art photographer
`Jonathan Blaustein
`(@ olauphnto), Creative
`Director HeidiVolpe,
`
`

`

`hm: f/www aonotoedllor com/ZO10/10/OS/askyan tnlnqrEVuEZWutBUD/ugseslmoieelmaueerlqhtseexolanatlon/
`12/18/2014110615AM
`
`Amanda and Suzanne:
`in regards In Image Rights it’s an area we have all dealt wilh or will deal wilh in uur careers In
`this induciiy, We can‘t expect our cuslumers tn always have knuwledge about our careers, Se
`we as piuress rials iiiusl firsl eduLaLe uurselues uii llie lupic, semi-u find a way we reel
`comfclrtable expressing the limitatinns ofthe artwork and lastly making sure it’s in writing and
`agreed upon by bum names, It duesn't always mean the problem is snlved ur vmblems Will
`not arise, but you have todn your lost in me beginning to set boundazies with your clients,
`ANSWERS:
`
`ESTABLISHED PHOTOGRAPHER 1:
`I have a limit bath in the consumer portrait world and the tashlnnlcommercial world While the
`izuitliimiui L'liellls Mtu Curl sruii a lol nipliulugiapliy usually have a decent uiiderelaiiiiiiig
`
`or copyright, this is not always the case, And cnnsumers generally have very lmle
`understanding emlo be lair, a an of phdlbgiaphers don't have a clear underslandlng 0f
`copynghl either!
`30 here‘s cupyriglil law in a nulshell: whenever a pholagrapher lakes a yholograph, helshe
`usually mun: diatimage, and can decide what [0 do wilh it
`ll doesn't mailer if someone hired
`lire phamgrapher Ia take lhe imagelhe cllenl pays rurllie service, nutme cupyright
`Generally the client and phmngraplwr have agreed un hew the client may use that image. But
`the client is only ‘borruwing‘ the image, and doesn'th it. Even ifthe image is actually of the
`client! The person who creates the image owns it, unless helshe gives up that ownership.
`
`F‘unraii/wedding clients will oflen assume that, because they hired the phomgrapher, and the
`prairies are "imam, man they iniisi mun ine images and can do wirai ihey warn wilh them
`Nut sn They have paid for the services of the pmmgrapher, and whatever ngh‘ls the
`phmgrapher specifically gmthem as pan ofthe transaction,
`
`The one exception In this automatic copyright is it the pholngrapher has agreed contractually
`to give up copyright, or has created the images under a ‘work for hire' of empleymenl
`sinialion, Thatis a relatively rare occurrence though
`CELEBRITY PHOTOGRAPHER 2:
`Vee, ii's sunrise anynne reqlaesllng lire file should he eduraled lr a phnlngrapher gives me! a
`high res—file, and does nol mentiun licensing, they are remiss
`ESTABLISHED PHOTOGRAPHER 3:
`Simple anme is No
`Fan A:
`
`i need In stale I don't believe we have any real cupyrighl pmrecmn (puinls l Ihmugh 5),
`
`phdlbgraphy cereullanl
`Suzanne 5%5e and
`Production DITEClDT Jess
`Dudley fl‘iWundertul
`Machine,
`
`JAIL DEE
`
`rub(at)apholaeditnr[dm)com
`All emails are confidential
`I
`may answeryour question on
`the blag but will not reml
`your identity
`
`.SICrN VP TC)
`RE
`IKE POSTS
`
`IX \ OUR E) L-\U_
`
`Email Muress ;
`
`RE CENT
`
`U \IBEENTS
`
`) Marco Patifio on AVisI'I To
`The Gsmy
`) Jonathan Blaustein un This
`Week In Fhamgraphly
`Bnols: Brad Moere
`
`9 David Ciifiord on Magnum
`Fholngrapher Trent Parke
`
`) Fauy Nlcora an Art
`Producers Speak iennrrer
`Whalen
`
`) Regan Wand unAs The
`
`

`

`

`

`

`

`hm: fM/ww seameartmuseum orQ/coHchoms/lmaqeflants
`
`12/18/2014 11 22 17 AM
`
`
`
`SEATTLE ART MUSEUM
`ASIAN ART MUSEUM
`4)me sumuma PARK
`
`mum,
`as"wmlm
`m mummum
`
`9
`
`IT
`EXHIBITIONS
`
`m columm
`cmnu'A'noN
`acumenm mm: Hams mum0?cm run-aw: A «mum-m
`
`
`PROGRAMS & LEARNING
`
`JOIN & GIVE
`
`me:can
`AVAIl-uilPm
`WPmemy:
`new remains
`
`1 In HR:
`
`arrow \wanna
`
`IMAGE RIGHTS
`The [rangemy]: & Rzpmducmms szmmanl m m: Send: AnMuseum pmndei
`inn-gr: rm eduunuunl ymmlafim: prnfzsnuunllaunch gum and mam-'5
`publlcnmn: and magmatic); All named; rmmesmm hemad: mwmmg
`Pemsmn fm such mugmnlad a d]: :01: humanofthz Scam AnMusmm
`Viewcommus farmfinman :mcmgpermisnmu, ox mmum mm
`phmgaph; alum-ks mthe SAM mum
`
`

`

`
`
`mm Wva seameartmuseum.om/coHeenumsflmaqeinqhts 12/18/2014 11:22 17 AM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AVAILABLE PHOTOGRAPHY
`
`mmmmummmmh
`
`mmfigfiflflanmhwm
`
`_mmuw,mmmmhmmkqmm
`
`usfiufiblvaflahflilytfinmdm
`
`Wrmammsmm
`
`mmmnmmmmmflumumm
`
`yuhhulimhlmll’ulhuingmzipnflqpmflnfiyflflrmmn
`mmmmmmammwwmm
`
`mhpdmmmmmguukquwwm
`
`WBMDM
`Whhmfimumiy mehmmnfi
`
`hmumflmalinmywy,meM§-mgsmhw
`hylkSulflcAJIann’x mum-Abajllexnhhhnfflziminfm
`
`madman.
`mw’swfimmmmnmmm
`mddfin‘nflh
`mmmmummfluinghm:
`- WSMWGMflflflmflm
`-
`hiplfizfimumvflhfisfimum
`hlcufpiiuz‘flm ammmqmammnn
`
`hmmmmemmmmnt
`wwgmumhm Imnfllh
`dim'hlal
`
`- Ganymlcmm-fliliflmliulmgflflgumPIL—Iihmdfluqhud
`mun
`' memmmmwmuw
`mmme
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS
`Ammdmwnymmmmngtummmmmm
`
`mmmMmMmuimyyammm
`
`Mmmhmm.wmum
`
`Mummkwfimmhmms
`
`wwmmmmmummm
`mmmmmem-‘awfiunmmw
`
`mmkmaymmn‘wwmmm
`Mmmmmhmmwnhmm
`
`wmhmmmhnmmmmumm
`mummumamumnumum
`
`mmmmmmhpfl‘mmmm
`
`mmmmmmhmmhmmm
`wméwmw
`
`
`

`

`
`
`mu: f/www seameartmuseum.ora/coHeomflsflmaqeinuhts 12/18/2014 11:22 17 AM
`
`_—.,~ -—=—«Hrm—M~1-—,
`hmm.mmmfimwmmmsmmm
`mnmmmmgurmy Smflemmzmnmllmhmmxmly
`hWWMmthmNWWW
`mmwmmmmmmaesguummflm
`
`‘HOW TO REACH US
`mmxmwmnwmmmmm
`ummmummmRnnmammmmmmmm
`ubyfllmfixmmafl.
`Salemmzmn
`Rightsimam-cm
`1309 Phi Am
`Sunk. WA9110171003
`1d: magnum
`
`Fa):2066543135
`
`

`

`hm: f/ahewdomaih net/2013/07/02/w11d7westecot) riqhtrsaiooheholdremeife oueqoteem/
`12/18/20141133 47 AM
`
`
`
`«N‘ oNeLuDomoin”
`aNewDumain
`Abuui
`Cummumw
`Tags
`Timeili’iE
`Fniiuw e
`
`Latest 3
`
`Image Rights in the Wild West — Hold ‘Em if You Got ‘Em
`aP-iewDumaih he: 7 0n the imemet, image right; and usage are a iittie Wild westry in terms of a
`cnpynght shnwdnwn Think (it it this way: “We like Eiack Barr 7 khees bent with yaw hand
`havenng aver yuur huister ready to appmpriaie an image, And at the uppniite end ofthe Square 15
`the Sheriff, the guy whu created and uwns the image.
`Once an image i; transferred into a cummmmy, it becomes a fragiiething, Even w you know what
`
`mm
`
`1
`
`i w
`
`i
`
`:
`
`
`
`ynu‘re doing, your pictures can be the abject M a bitter shnwdnwn,
`Cannect With aNeanmaIn
`
`image credrt. Viki Reed
`There is NO Artistic Merit ma Phnnebunk
`
`
`
`Cuhhect Wlih ENEWDDmth
`
`

`

`Follow 2ND nn Miller
`
`Like aNewDomam on Facebook
`
`aNewDDmai" "El
`'
`4t
`a
`N D'
`576mm: aNewDummn m
`
`
`
` ,
`
`hm: f/anewdomam net/2013/07/02/w11d7westicop Hunt’samomiholdremiwf’ ouiqotiem/
`12/18/20141133 47 AM
`
`7
`V
`7
`,
`,
`Bmi‘srnymage, younlgflsay. Sulelylovmlnerlgmslol’ZVesyoudo, said MlchaelGIeccon
`an ankled EdnanalPhuto cumAnd maybeyoudolfl
`
`In mostcases me phomgraphens me copyright holder The exoepmns ale empmyees
`wherememmpanyuwnsmemflg andphatoglapherswhohavesignedamfleforimre
`agreement Since the m is copyrighfed at me moment oicapture, workforth
`agreemenls are no! enmrceable unless meyale signedBEFORE me capture 01me
`image '
`Oh,andlheptmonmhave§andalonemicmi GISCCOCW
`
`Acapyrighbblemtkmustbe ...anbfighalmtkolautholship.’flleexamplefllatis
`onengwensmalyoucannoloapyfigmaphanebook metelsnoammcmeflnoa
`phonebook Wremustbesomesartofvametoihowevermmnal
`YoucanNOT
`oopypigmaoonoept. Rebokandfeelolme imageiswhafisoopylightable.’
`
`License and Registmion. Please. Ma'am
`TmedalJlIeinageisymlswonslmenelease, WIItheon‘kbeiIg reg'seled wimneus
`copyligllnflice, howevei, you'lfmmanvioums dmlhavenucmqia, Tllebudellisonlhe
`mmprwemevaheoimwork.AsGteccosays, “Wilm Ieg'filaiionlheie'smmechan'sm
`Imufledanagfi’Dnn’Hofgdyou'lepayhglhelawyelsloligllloryoqu, Someonelfiixg you
`inageulawfilyhasbdtaoddsawiuingflmaganfladoaalhe EmgaaCas'lIo, “cog
`younmelogaywolmeoflleslmmlwodd coaneItHIoicensele-fiom.
`
`
`
`Camoyn E VVliglI Inage credi: PhumAflomeyoom
`okay. I’m Gonna Be Sick
`Nawyouknow VoupensedTnEyemdmoglehagxmdfmmeoiymstmsmsomame’s
`websieonnagazileaflicle Black Eadlookilissholvmlemdad yd,bllwhddoyoudo? How
`do youl'nd malomey speciflz'ng i1 HMS plmogiafimCaolyn E. Wligll, alamaslic
`mmer and Iawvet whose sie PhotoAmmev com is THEfI's son 10! mammals wh