[interested_observer]

Celebrity photographer Bonnie Schiffman has filed a copyright lawsuit that claims Rod Stewart misused an image she took that adorned the singer's 1989 greatest-hits album as the centerpiece of his comeback tour.

According to a complaint filed Thursday in California federal court, the exploitation of the "replicate image, an unmistakable copy" is impermissible without authorization.

• Rod Stewart Sued for Reusing Image of the Back of His Head | Billboard

Here are the links to the images in question

• http://www.free-covers.org/covers/77197.jpg
• http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/literock969.com/files/2012/03/rod-stewart-350-x-250.jpg

Not the exact same photography, but the same concept, etc.
So before everyone goes off on the difference between Copyright and Patents, concepts and execution, etc. There has been settled case law (US and UK) on this topic. Consider the following:

• 5 famous copyright infringement cases (what you can learn) in particular Rogers vs. Koons
• Photographers face copyright threat after shock ruling | Amateur Photographer
• NIPC Law: Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Then there is the offered $1.500 license fee. Using the Getty Calculator:

• Print Ad ~ $3500
• Event ~ $3500
• Billboards ~ $5900
• totaling about $13,000 Since Stewart would probably be using all of these and more.

In that Rod Stewart is not - a starving artist, just starting out, or is unaware of Copyrights, this is just bad business practices. Considering that Stewart's agent probably spends more on a single lunch, putting his client is a very awkward position and trashing his reputation as a potential thief - (ok, copyright infringement is not "stealing" per se).

You can never really be certain of a court outcome (and the endless appeals - especially in California), but I think that the photographer and her attorney will come away with a win on this one. Either a large outright win or settlement (plus legal fees).

[luftfluss]

Now, she's upset upon seeing an image that looks like the one she took as the "centerpiece" of his new Las Vegas show. She also identifies photos on ancillary products that are said to have "misappropriated the most recognizable elements of the Schiffman Image, if not the exact image itself."How can anyone make any judgment without seeing the 2 images in question?

I'd have to see the photos in question.

[asaru]

Photographs should have no copyright, period.

[delegopa]

She better gets the money, because there will be a good drop in clients after this... Strange Story...
It would be interesting to know, whether she tried to settle this outside the court beforehand.

[PiDicus Rex]

Photographs should have no copyright, period.

You'd better explain why, else every professional photographer and cinematographer here will want to know how else they are going to protect the skills and time that they make their income from.

[tuco]

... and trashing his reputation as a potential thief - (ok, copyright infringement is not "stealing" per se).

And yet movies on DVD/Blu-ray flash that FBI warning. Interesting how big business expects the tax payer to help enforce their IP but someone like you and me would most likely never get law enforcement help protecting our IP.

[halfspin]

Photographs should have no copyright, period.

You're out of your skull, exclamation point.

[jatrax]

Photographs should have no copyright, period.

So I should work for free?

[Na Horuk]

So celebrities need to get someone to take a photo of them from all different angles and then copyright them. Then noone can take a photo of them without permission?

[D1N0]

It's a different picture, so no deal. Did Bonnie Schiffman create the artwork for the CD-cover? I don't think so. It's just her picture that was used. She didn't want it used again so Rod Stewart can have a new picture taken more than 30 years later, can't he.

[asaru]

Anyone who wants to sell an image should be able to sell it. Once. Once it's sold, that's it.

Anyone who wants to publish an image should be able to buy it and publish it. Once. Once it's published, that's it.

The choice on whether to sell or not, to buy or not, to publish or not, can be made, but it should only be made once.

If anyone can't make enough working that way, one should really look for other work.

[vonBaloney]

Anyone who wants to sell an image should be able to sell it. Once. Once it's sold, that's it.

Anyone who wants to publish an image should be able to buy it and publish it. Once. Once it's published, that's it.

The choice on whether to sell or not, to buy or not, to publish or not, can be made, but it should only be made once.

If anyone can't make enough working that way, one should really look for other work.

Not following. So there along with "there should be no copyright" there should also be no copies?

[jatrax]

Anyone who wants to sell an image should be able to sell it. Once. Once it's sold, that's it. Anyone who wants to publish an image should be able to buy it and publish it. Once. Once it's published, that's it. The choice on whether to sell or not, to buy or not, to publish or not, can be made, but it should only be made once. If anyone can't make enough working that way, one should really look for other work.

Really trying to understand your viewpoint, but struggling.

So I take an image and sell it once. The person who buys it uses it on their website. For how long? Can they use it on print materials as well? Was it sold as royalty free or rights managed? If RM, what rights were sold with the license?

I have images that have sold hundreds of times. I know photographers that have images that have sold thousands of times. And I use the term 'sold' loosely and inaccurately, the images are all licensed for a particular use. Some as RF which allows the buyer to continue using it for the purpose described in the license indefinitely. Some are licensed as RM which confers specific rights for a specific time and geographical area.

As another example if someone writes a book they can sell only one copy of it? Same thing, intellectual property. I created that image and I own the copyright to it.

[interested_observer]

Anyone who wants to sell an image should be able to sell it. Once. Once it's sold, that's it.

Anyone who wants to publish an image should be able to buy it and publish it. Once. Once it's published, that's it.

The choice on whether to sell or not, to buy or not, to publish or not, can be made, but it should only be made once.

If anyone can't make enough working that way, one should really look for other work.

The same Copyright that covers photography also covers software. So, I work for 3 years designing and developing software and then sell one copy - after which it is freely distributed? Even OpenSource software provides for support and a few little companies called RedHat and Mozilla do a pretty good business supporting it.

I guess that you are not thinking of all of that software sitting on your PC, tablet, and smart phone - either.

[gmans]

As a fully fledged bush lawyer, it would seem to me, be what the original contract was for if it was a commissioned work for promotional work and album cover, with no time limitations they would be in there right to use it. if it was only for album cover no promotional work well dunno? More than likely a money grab.