AP serves George Zimmerman with a cease-and-desist order....

The Daily Mail Online ^ | January 24, 2014 | Daily Mail Reporter

[a fool in paradise]

As if AssPress doesn’t steal other peoples’ photos...

http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html

In another case (McClatchey v. Associated Press), the Associated Press (AP) took a picture of one of the plaintiff’s photographs from her portfolio without the photographer’s permission. The original photograph depicted the mushroom cloud caused by the crash of Flight 93 into a Pennsylvania field on 9/11. The AP then redistributed the plaintiff’s photograph but replaced the plaintiff’s copyright information with its own. The photographer was entitled to damages.

[Fantasywriter]

Correction. Zimmerman only owes his trial team between $200,000 & 300,000—less than I thought. Plus, they are trying to wrangle that $ out of the state of FL. I have no idea what the likelihood of success is. If they fail, Zimmerman’s still on the hook. But he wd have more of the 3,000,000 left over than I originally thought, & I wanted to update to that effect.

[JoeProBono]

[Uncle Chip]

Thanks for pointing that out — at 1:19 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UskHmQ5DHw

The AP is not the only source for that image.

I would say that it is burned into a lot of people’s memories.

[Uncle Chip]

Otoh, if you use the photo as inspiration but make at least seven significant changes, the painting is considered original and you can do anything you want w it.

What would those changes have to be???

I can see a few differences -- there may even be seven.

[Fantasywriter]

That is a very good question. The next time I see my friend I’ll plan to ask her. She needs to know this type of thing for her line of work. At the time she was explaining it to me, I was more or less listening politely. I had no personal use for the info. What I gathered, though, was that the image itself, whatever was being painted, needed to differ substantially in at least seven ways from the photo. I.e. merely signing the image wdn’t count as one. I don’t know about changing the color scheme. The underlying image is still the same, so that one may not count either. As mentioned before, putting words over—or under, or beside—the image leaves the image itself unchanged also.

As I said, I’ll need to check back w my friend. I ought to give her a call anyway, so this cd be a good catalyst. Sorry I can’t be more specific. She is a painter, and I’m just her friend.

[Fantasywriter]

Oops; found some info online that appears to undermine my friend’s info:

Question: Artist’s Copyright FAQ: If I Change 10 Percent, Isn’t It a New Image?

Answer: The belief that changing 10 percent of an image means you’ve created a new one is a myth (as is changing 20 percent or 30 percent). The fair use guideline is that you can use 10 percent of something.

It’s certainly not a legal test, but as a rule of thumb consider whether, if your painting were put next to the painting or photo you’re copying, would someone say you’d based it on the original? If so, you’re risking copyright infringement. Don’t fool yourself with this 10 percent change myth.

Go to Full Artist’s Copyright FAQ.

Disclaimer: The information given here is based on US copyright law and is given for guidance only; you’re advised to consult a copyright lawyer on copyright issues.

http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq6.htm

[Uncle Chip]

Zimmerman’s painting instructor said that he advised him to paint this way by projecting an image on canvas.

You would have thought that he would also have advised him on how to avoid copyright violations.

I do notice that there is no cross hanging from the necklace and the earrings are virtually nonexistent — but are those “significant” enough.

If enough “significant” changes are made then you might not be able to tell that it was Angie C.

And then you might enter the realm where you might be getting cease and desist letters from Angie.

[Fantasywriter]

Agree w your excellent points, UC. I just hope Zimmerman had a recorder going throughout his trial. If he did, cd he stop the feed at a certain point and print the screen image? If so, he cd print one that looks just like his pic. How wd that be copyright infringement?

[This idea isn’t original w me. It’s been expressed numerous times upthread. The difference being if Zim had a printed image, from his own feed, that he cd hold in his hand and show the judge—how then cd anyone prove he didn’t paint from it? We’ll just have to see how it all plays out.]

[unlearner]

I can’t predict the court outcome, but it seems ridiculous on the face of it to claim a painting of a public photo violates intellectual property rights.

There is well established law, or at least precedence, regarding photos. This is how photo journalists make their money. Parody does give legal protection; so I think his painting should be safe.

Bottom line though is that AP has no financial damages, and there is no confusion in the marketplace created by this painting. They should be awarded zero. It certainly comes across as just an effort to harass a guy they targeted arbitrarily from the start.

[Fantasywriter]

I’m not suggesting he lie or cheat, btw. If he really did just print out the AP photo, he needs to cop to it. Otoh, the image of Corey’s face in that pose is one everyone’s videofeed who recorded the trial. I assume it’s on Youtube. W proper representation on Zim’s side, it seems doubtful AP can prevail.