Agency Demands Fee From Ann Coulter for Hillary Picture Usage

anncoulter.com ^ | April 21, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[mewzilla]

I represent renown photojournalist David Burnett...

Renown (sic), huh? Snort.

And if he's so renowned, why does his flack feel the need to mention the obvious?

[Dustin Hawkins]

<> Cool, am I any good?

[nonliberal]

You are great! Buy the album "Permission to Land."

[Amalie]

As a photographer, I can understand the issue being raised; the web is always STEALING work as if it were free. However, in this instance, I think the photographer and his agent would be well-seved by letting this stuff get out there; like Ann herself admits, any publicity is good. The law, in any case, will be on the side of the photographer should this end up in court....

BTW, I saw the mag at the dentists office yesterday; the Protest Warrior photo is in it, but they conveniently cropped out the communistsforkerry.com logo, leaving Ann's face and brief glimpes of the otehr protest signs.

[texasbluebell]

Here's the Protest Warrior photo you mention, it's unaltered on the Time website -- just posting a link so somebody doesn't complain that it's been stolen!

link

Love that "communistsforkerry.com".

[texasbluebell]

At least I think that's the photo you mentioned.

[Amalie]

Yes, that's the one; the mag cropped it pretty tight though it was about a half-page in size.

[texasbluebell]

Take a look at my post over on one of the Coulter threads (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1388218/posts).

Time said they were PRO GOP protestors!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look at the caption that is on that photo on Time's site:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Pro-G.O.P protesters at the Republican Convention in New York City last year

"Correction: The original caption incorrectly stated that these protesters were blasting Coulter"

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050425/gallery/8.html

[Amalie]

I saw that post when it first went up. However, the caption in the magazine still infers they are anti-Coulter protesters...

[texasbluebell]

Yes, anti-Coulter, but what's with the communistsforkerry.com, and protestwarrior.com. Were those really GOP protestors?

Maybe I missed the point of the caption. I guess I did.

Too subtle for me!

[FreedomCalls]

She is safe. According to Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1998) a parody that transforms the original and does not compete with the original is "fair use." In the Leibovitz case a movie company used a photo of a naked pregnant woman and superimposed the head of actor Leslie Nielsen. The photo was a parody using similar lighting and body positioning of a famous photograph taken by Annie Leibovitz of the actress Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. Annie Leibovitz, the photographerof Demi Moore, sued for copyright infringement and lost.

[Amalie]

Good point. I would agree, but remember in that case, I am fairly certain it was NOT an actual Leibovitz image that was used - she was claiming intellectual right over the layout/design of the photo (a stretch IMO). I don't believe it was Nielson's head actually on Moore's body (though I may be wrong); she may have had a case. However, what I had not considered in my previous post and as you said, the Hildabeat shot was a parody of a magazine cover (as well as the photo editor image), not a direct reproduction. In that light, I'm also inclined to believe that Coulter to be within her rights.

[FreedomCalls]

You are correct. Paramount reshot the Leibovitz photo using another model to exactly reproduce the effect without actually using her original photo. On the other hand, they were using it in a commercial setting to promote their movie, whereas Coulter is only using her Hillary photo as a editorial statement with no commercial aspect tied to it.