Comments on: Woman accuses Yahoo of stealing her image
Ohio woman demands $20 million from Yahoo for allegedly embedding a photo of her in a welcome e-mail sent to new users.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Teen Muziic founder chastised by Vevo
December 29, 2009 3:53 PM PST
- More attacks expected on Facebook, Twitter in 2010
December 29, 2009 2:50 PM PST
- Real-time tracking of those who wander
December 29, 2009 2:04 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Whether it is a model, photographer, graphic designer, the individual should get paid for his/her work.
Yahoo! is making money with each new user that receives the email. The person in the image and photographer who took the photo should be getting paid for their WORK, too.
Of course Yahoo! is responsible for making sure they're using images legally, but the owner of the images should do all he/she can to keep their work from unintended use, as well. Relevant article regarding creatives and copyright: http://www.essentialsecurity.com/news.htm?id=423
Whether it is a model, photographer, graphic designer, the individual should get paid for his/her work.
Yahoo! is making money with each new user that receives the email. The person in the image and photographer who took the photo should be getting paid for their WORK, too.
This may sound silly, but I would think that she would be awarded damages related to the number of times the picture was used, and the nature of the picture, as well as punitive damages.
If the picture was some way embarrassing, like a nude photo or a picture with the caption, "I use Yahoo" or "I use AOL", the damages would be greater. If negligence on her part contributed to her picture being used, the damages should be less.
Please understand I am not a lawyer. My opinion has all the validity of a Judge talking about computers or the internet.
Nothing was stolen, she lost nothing. Yahoo made no money directly off this.
What a greedy who*e.
If this is true, yahoo should be fined $10000 as punitive and nothing more.
SHE DOES NOT OWN THE IMAGE - the copyright holder owns the image and in this case, it is most likely the photographer. She must have signed a model release for stock usage or the agency wouldn't have accepted the image.
She has no case whatsoever.
and make a poor lawyer rich doing it..
If they did they could use some of the kickback they get from pumping Second Life and salesforce.com to pay her off.
- Olan Mills... 2
- by webbod March 6, 2007 9:51 AM PST
- They may own the copyright, but they don't have the right to assign it to a third party without your consent, i.e. you can't end up being "the frame guy" just because Olan Mills shot your portrait.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(40 Comments)The purpose of the law suit is to get Yahoo to 'fess up' and point the finger at the agency that supplied the photograph, if Yahoo acted in good faith then they aren't liable, it the stock agency that are at fault.
Eventhough they may not be at fault Yahoo have distributed her image without her consent, the judge will look at how Yahoo licensed the image and then either dismiss the case against them or award damages in proportion to the harm that has been done.
Considering she was unaware that her image was being 'abused' until she recieved an email from Yahoo it will be hard for her to argue damages.
In a European court her maximum award would be related to the fees that she'd have recieved had the image been licensed correctly, and not based on the number of infringing copies in circulation, but she's in the USA, I'm surprised she's only asking $10m - she should have tired for $50 per copy - or $100m.