With the rise in social media usage over the past two decades or so and the decline in conventional advertising formats has come a surge in ad efforts on social media platforms. This push to meet consumers where they are has meant that the jobs of influential figures – from fashion industry influencers to Hollywood celebrities – have expanded to include building and maintaining sizable social media followings in order to leverage those followings for big-money advertising partnerships. IMG Models’ Luiz Mattos, the agent behind the likes of supermodels Gigi and Bella Hadid, and actress Priyanka Chopra, put it well when he said, “These days, models’ jobs don’t end when they leave the studio or the runway,” and absolutely extends to “posting on social [media].”
One of the glaring side effects of such increased attention to social media – paired with a handful of notably aggressive lawyers – is the growing number of copyright infringement lawsuits that are being filed against individuals and brands over their unauthorized use of others’ images either of themselves, in the case celebrities and models, or of others in their wares when it comes to brands. Regardless of who appears in a photo (as copyright law does not award rights based on the subject of a photo, although at least some, such as Gigi Hadid, have taken to arguing that joint copyright rights should exist in some cases), the individual(s) behind the creation of a photo, almost exclusively paparazzi photographers (or their employers) in these instances, are the copyright holders, and as a result, any use of images by individuals other than the copyright holder gives rise to copyright infringement claims.
With the foregoing in mind, here is a non-exhaustive (running) look at some of the recently-filed paparazzi v. celebrity and paparazzi v. brand cases …
JULY 2024 – BackGrid v. Rachel Zoe, 2:24-cv-05979 (C.D. Cal.)
BackGrid is suing Rachel Zoe – albeit not for posting an image of herself on her social media accounts but for posting one of model and actress Dylan Penn that it maintains the copyright for. According to its complaint, BackGrid claims that it never licensed the image of Penn to Zoe, and yet, the stylist used the image “without authorization or permission to do so, and without paying a license fee.” Specifically, Backgrid alleges that Zoe “copied the image from internet sources … stored the image on servers or computers, modified the image to create a derivative work that directly competes against BackGrid’s Image, and displayed the image on [her] social medical account @rachelzoe on Instagram.”
The image, which depicts Penn in a pink dress, is “creative, distinctive, and—as evidenced by Zoe’s use and misappropriation of [it]—valuable,” BackGrid argues, asserting that “because of the image’s quality, visual appeal, and celebrity subject matter, plaintiff earned revenue from licensing it and stood to gain more revenue from licensing.”
In terms of harm, BackGrid contends that Zoe’s unauthorized use of the image “harmed the existing and future market for it,” as her Instagram post “made the image immediately available to her followers and to the public, including consumers of entertainment and fashion news—and especially news and images of the celebrity subjects of the image—who would otherwise be interested in viewing licensed versions of [it] in the magazines, newspapers, and online publications that are [BackGrid’s] customers.” In addition, Zoe “posted the image to Instagram the day after BackGrid initially published it for licensing to customers—a critical time during which BackGrid’s licensing activity is typically most robust,” the photo agency argues.
Zoe’s “unauthorized use of the image also harms BackGrid’s business model by driving down the prices for legitimately licensed celebrity images and driving away actual and potential customers,” the plaintiff asserts in setting out its single copyright infringement claim.
JULY 2024 – BackGrid v. Area Studio, 1:24-cv-05376 (SDNY)
BackGrid has waged a copyright infringement claim against Area Studio, accusing the New York-based fashion brand of co-opting two images of model Cindy Bruna for which it maintains the copyrights. According to BackGrid’s complaint, Area copied each of the two images and displayed them on its Instagram and Facebook pages. The brand’s “unauthorized uses of the images is commercial in nature,” per BackGrid, as Area “uses its Instagram feed for the purposes of promotion—specifically, to promote brand awareness of its business, and to attract buyers and drive sales its products.”
In fact, BackGrid argues that “each of [Area’s] Instagram posts was expressly commercial because the accompanying text highlighted defendant’s products being worn by the celebrity depicted.” The brand “specifically posted the Images on Instagram to attract buyers for its products,” as the company “knew that because the images depicted popular celebrities, users would be attracted to view the images and thus, [would be] more likely to buy its products,” BackGrid contends. “In short, defendant used the Images as advertisements.”
Continuing on, BackGrid maintains that “as a fashion and fashion accessory company, [Area] operates in an industry in which copyrights are prevalent and well-understood. Based on that knowledge, defendant was aware of the importance of copyright protection and knew that it needed to have but did not have permission to use the Images, and/or it acted recklessly by posting the Images without determining whether it the right to do so.”
JUNE 2024 – Evas Photography, Inc. v. Daniel Sergio Hudson, 2:24-cv-01879 (C.D. Cal.)
MAY 2024 – Barbera v. Grailed, Inc., 1:24-cv-03535 (SDNY)
APRIL 2024 – BackGrid USA, Inc. v. Talentless, LLC, 2:24-cv-02554 (C.D. Cal.)
Paparazzi photo agency BackGrid is suing Scott Disick’s brand Talentless, alleging that “to promote its brand and sales, [Talentless] reproduced, distributed, displayed, and created unauthorized derivative works of” a photo of Kim Kardashian and Tristan Thompson on its Instagram account “without [BackGrid’s] consent or license.” According to its complaint, BackGrid asserts that “among many other in-demand works, [it] owns coveted photographs of Tristin Thompson and Kim Kardashian, one of which is at issue in this litigation.”
BackGrid maintains that Talentless “violated federal law by willfully infringing BackGrid’s copyrights to at least one [of its images] on, at least, the [company’s] Instagram account,” knowing that they “did not have the right to post the photograph.” The photo agency also asserts that it “previously filed suit against Mr. Disick for using BackGrid’s photographs on his social media accounts, [and] as such, he was on notice that such use required a license.”
APRIL 2024 – Stewart v. Tapestry, Inc., 1:24-cv-02988 (SDNY)
Photographer Michael Stewart is suing Stuart Weitzman owner Tapestry, Inc. after the brand posted his copyright-protected images of Kendall Jenner and Olivia Palermo to its social media accounts without his authorization.
MARCH 2024 – Stewart v. Nina Arias LLC, 1:24-cv-02052 (SDNY)
FEBRUARY 2024 – Stewart v. Project 1920, Inc., 5:24-cv-00884 (N.D. Cal.)
Photographer Michael Stewart is suing Project 1920 d/b/a Senreve for posting his copyright-protected image of Angelina Jolie on social media and its e-commerce site to promote its brand. Looking to get ahead of any claims that the defendant might make in order to chip away at the originality/creativity of the image, Stewart asserts that he “personally selected the subject matter, timing, lighting, angle, perspective, depth, lens, and camera equipment used to capture the image.”
FEBRUARY 2024 – Barbera v. I.AM.GIA (US) LLC, 2:24-cv-01263 (C.D. Cal.)
Robert Barbera is suing fashion brand I.AM.GIA for posting an image he took of Kendall Jenner to its social media accounts without authorization.
2023
NOVEMBER 2023 – Xposure Photo Agency Inc. v. Christopher Brown, 2:23-cv-10103 (C.D. Cal.)
AUGUST 2023 – Chosen Figure LLC v. Bella Hadid, 1:23-cv-06757 (SDNY)
Bella Hadid has been hit with another copyright lawsuit, this time over an image of herself “outside an apartment door” that she posted to her Instagram account on August 12, 2020. (The image has since been deleted from Hadid’s account.) Plaintiff Chosen Figure claims that it is “a professional photography [company] by trade” and the “legal and rightful owner of the photographs [that it] licenses to online and print publications.” Chosen Figure’s photographs are “original, creative works in which [it] owns protectable copyright interests,” the company claims in the complaint, alleging that Hadid infringed such interests when she “volitionally selected, copied, stored and displayed [its] copyright protected photograph” on her Instagram account “without permission or authorization” from Chosen Figure.
Setting out a single claim of copyright infringement in its August 2 complaint, Chosen Figure argues that Hadid “has received a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringement,” “a large number of people have viewed the unlawful copies of the photograph on [her] social media account,” “at all times, [Hadid] had the ability to stop the reproduction and display of [the] copyrighted material,” and her “use of the photograph, if widespread, would harm [Chosen Figure’s] potential market for the photograph.”
JUNE 2023 – James Fortune v. Micky Dolenz, 2:23-cv-05156 (C.D. Cal.)
MAY 2023 – John Carta v. Garcelle Beauvais, 2:23-cv-04093 (C.D. Cal.)
APRIL 2023 – BackGrid USA, Inc. v. Tales of Vintage, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-03124 (C.D. Cal.)
A luxury knit clothing company doing business as JoosTricot is on the receiving end of a new copyright suit for posting “at least two” paparazzi-lensed photos of Abigail Spencer to its Facebook and Instagram pages along with the caption “Ugh we love a good paparazzi picture … [],” thereby, “acknowledging that the photos were professionally shot and not authored by JoosTricot.”
APRIL 2023 – BackGrid USA, Inc. v. Ian Charms, LLC et al, 2:23-cv-03089 (C.D. Cal.)
Ian Charms has also been hit with a new copyright infringement suit, with BackGrid arguing in its complaint that the celeb-approved jewelry company “reproduced, distributed, displayed, and created unauthorized derivative works of celebrity photographs on its Instagram account without consent or license.” Of note, according to BackGrid, is that Ian Charms “even concealed the fact that it did not own the rights, [as] when Instagram user nina877711 asked in the comments of the photos ‘Can you post pictures when you dont (sic.) have the rights?,’ Ian Charms responded ‘yes I took this with my iphone X.’ That statement was not true. Ian Charms is not the author of the photographs.”
BackGrid alleges that it has identified “at least nine instances of infringement by way of the unlawful reproduction and display of [its] photographs” by Ian Charms.
This is an excerpt from a timeline was published exclusively for TFL Pro+ subscribers. For access to our most up-to-date lawsuit tracker and others like it, inquire today about how to sign up for a Professional subscription.
Share
