TU NIDITO REJECTS FUNDS FROM PHOTO LICENSING LITIGATION
As the days unfolded following the shooting on Jan. 8 that killed six and injured 13, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the media introduced onlookers to the victims. One of those was nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, who was shown in a portrait photograph that was reproduced by media outlets nationally and internationally. By now it’s among the most recognizable photos connected to the mass shooting. Local photographer Jon Wolf owns the copyright, and has obtained a legal firm to collect royalties for the use of the image.
“Mr. Wolf is the copyright holder of certain images of Christina Green and members of her family,” Edward Greenberg, the New York City attorney handling the case for Wolf, said in an e-mail statement. “Those images were used without the consent or authorization of our client who under copyright law has the sole authority to license such use. The infringers include major news organizations who were aware or should have been aware that they were making unauthorized copies and did so simply to avoid the payment of licensing fees. Simply put, his images were stolen or copied.
“This office was retained to prosecute infringers and secure monies as a result of these blatant federal copyright infringements. A substantial portion of the monies raised via litigation, settlements or authorized licensing will be donated to Tu Nidito, a local AZ charity which supports families who have lost loved ones. At present we are in the midst of settling with some media outlets, have settled with others and intend to file suit against still others.”
Media outlets obtained the photo directly from the Green family, but Greenberg contends that even though they purchased the portfolio packet, they don’t own the copyright.
“Certain images were provided by the Green family to the media,” Greenberg said. “Not all such occasions are cause for a claim under Federal Copyright law. It is a violation of Federal Copyright Law to photograph another photograph and claim it as your own. This is an unethical and/or illegal technique frequently employed by the media when confronted with an immediate demand for photographs for which they do not want to pay. Those media companies who improperly employed our client’s registered image without his consent did so for the primary purpose—in some cases, sole purposes—of avoiding paying for news content to working photographers and journalists thus increasing their own profit margins.”
Greenberg says many of the cases are being filed against national news outlets based in New York City, although local news organizations that used the photo are facing legal issues as well. Wolf, who is off-limits to media interview requests as per his attorney’s advice, contacted Tu Nidito with the news, but failed to mention in his conversation the method of procurement for the “significant portion” of monies raised. As a result, the non-profit organization has decided against accepting Wolf’s donations.
“Jon (Wolf) has been a longtime supporter of Tu Nidito, and he notified us a while back that he wished to donate proceeds from funds he would receive from the use of this photo to Tu Nidito,” said Tu Nidito assistant director Ciara Meyer-Garcia. “We were unaware there was any litigation or any issues surrounding these. We wrongfully assumed these were funds that would be automatically generated from the use of this photo. He contacted us and said, ‘I’m going to be receiving some money for this and I’d like to donate it to Tu Nidito.’ He’s well aware of our work within the Tucson community and felt like it would be an appropriate place for him to make what we had viewed as a personal donation from him. We were not aware of any litigation, any lawsuits, and do not want to be associated with them.”
Tu Nidito Children and Family Services is a non-profit organization that provides ongoing support for children whose lives have been affected by a serious or fatal medical condition within the family. The organization assists upwards of 1,200 family members annually, including 600 grieving the loss of loved ones. Since the shooting, Tu Nidito has used its expertise to coordinate numerous grief-counseling support group events designed to assist those impacted.
Bottom line: The sheer volume of licensing collection could lead to a significant payday for Wolf. It’s safe to say that with its enhanced community role, Tu Nidito could be well-served through the undisclosed percentage of his settlement Wolf had planned to contribute. Clearly, Tu Nidito’s decision to reject his offer was not taken lightly.
“We offer services for many of the people in our community who are now in need, and we’ve extended those services at no cost to our community so that we can provide support for the victims and provide support to the larger community. We’ve been providing support for individuals. We’ve been in schools, church groups,” Meyer-Garcia said. “As an agency, we felt like that was our role in the aftermath of what had happened.
“We did not associate any type of controversy with what he had proposed to us. Given the nature of the work we do, it’s important for us to remain a safe place for families and other members of our community who have experienced great loss. I believe his intentions were probably good. That said, this is getting into an area that’s very uncomfortable for us to be in. We make it a decision not to engage in these types of practices. When it was explained to us, there was no controversy or issues surrounding it.
“We need to stand by our own fundraising practices. It’s an uncomfortable association for our agency. Now that we’re aware of it, we will make the steps to no longer be a part of it.”
This article appears in Feb 10-16, 2011.
Is this not the definition of scumbag?
Tu Nidito has always been know as a safe place, a private place to deal with the most tragic time in the lives of families in need. I applaud Tu Nidito for not associating the well respected organization with funds raised in this matter.
Get a life…hasn’t this family gone through enough? I agree with earlier post…this is a scumbag.
I was waiting apprehensively for someone to try to cash in on the Tucson Tragedy. I never thought it would be someone as “respected” in the community as photographer Jon Wolf.
In the hours and days after John and Roxanna Green lost their daughter Christina, they didn’t think to check with Jon Wolf whether it’d be okay to share the image with the media, hence with the world.
The Green family chose Jon Wolf’s photograph of their daughter to be the image by which the world remembers their daughter. Is that not compensation enough for Wolf?
The media doesn’t know the Greens didn’t have copyright on the image. How hard must it be to interview that family, help them share memories of their daughter who will never turn 10, let the world know who she was and who she’ll never have a chance to become. Oh and to help the family SHOW the world what they lost. A beautiful little girl with dark hair and dark eyes, captured in a beautiful image taken by Jon Wolf.
But that is not to be allowed. Jon Wolf wants his cut. The price the Greens paid for the portrait wasn’t enough. The price the Greens paid at the hands of Jared Loughner is not enough. Jon Wolf needs blood money.
If Jon Wolf needed to benefit from the death of Christina Green, why wouldn’t he forget lawsuits and simply hang her portrait in the waiting room of his photography studio. A potential customer would be instantly drawn to it.
For example:
Potential Customer: You mean YOU were the one who took THAT photo?
Jon Wolf: Yes. The Greens are clients of mine. It’s so incredibly sad. I remember the day they came in for the photo shoot. Christina was so sweet. Such a future ahead of her.
Potential Customer: I will take your top package.
Jon Wolf must have figured at some point the the fallout would be too bad for him to keep the cash he shakes out of the media outlets. So he took it over to a local charity that could really use the money. He gave them the impression there was nothing controversial about where he got it. Who knows what that money could have provided the charity, maybe a new outdoor playground with Jon Wolf’s name on it. That would have been very nice for him, painted him as a generous pillar of this community.
Kudos to Tu Nidito for telling Jon Wolf to keep his blood money.
I only wish enough people would find out about this to put Jon Wolf out of business, if not run him out of town.
As the first poster noted, he is the definition of a scumbag.
Early on a couple of images of Loughner in a band emerged and were attributed to another local photographer. I have no doubt any media outlet using these had to contact the photographer first for permission. When I saw the photo of Christina I knew immediately that was not just some sort of family shapshot but was a professional one. The article is correct that these images are copywrited and owned by the respective photographers.
The images are the intellectual property of the photographer…always…unless relinquished by said photographer. As a professional photographer I make the same arrangements with my clients. They are allowed the use of the images for a specific purpose and are never allowed to give the images for someone else to use without my permission. To do so is stealing. The major media outlets, of all organizations, should know and understand copywrite laws intimately and I agree they tried to scam this.
If a musician, artist, or writer had their work stolen and used by someone else that is wrong. It is no different for a photographer. Stealing is stealing and the fact that the above posters don’t understand the rules doesn’t change that fact.
I’d like to ask you this Wise-Guy, if you had been the photog who took the portrait of the Greens, and they asked for permission to show the world what a precious girl she was, would you have granted it?
Curious Observer, I think I would’ve allowed permission with a byline. Asking permission is the key here. These very savvy media outlets knew what they were doing was illegal and did it anyway. I can’t read Mr.Wolf’s mind but the fact that he was trying to donate this recompense leads me to believe he is using this as a “lesson” to the media.
News providers profit from horrible events all of the time. That is the way the news works. This is not about how sad the event was, or how wonderful the girl was. News providers know a professional photo when they see it and they know to ask whose image it is so that the photographer can get compensated just like they do. That is how that business works. It has nothing to do with the family. Families provide images all of the time. It’s the news providers job to take care of the licensing questions without disrespecting the families.
I own several copyrights, and I understand how important they are, but this is an over-reaching grab for cash, and disgusting.
Local businesses generate revenues by providing products and services. The media outlets that are reputable understand and comply with the copyright laws related to publishing the work of others. Asking media outlets to remunerate a company for copyrighted materials with the intent of providing financial assistance to a local charity organization is admirable. Local charities accept donations from local businesses regardless of the methods by which the moneys were procured by the businesses. It is quite unfortunate that Ms. Meyer-Garcia has opted to take such a righteous stance in an economic environment that does not lend itself to healthy charitable contributions by businesses. Mr. Wolf identified a potential and legitimate revenue stream for a charity in need – the charity opted to take a somewhat political stance and is now refusing the funds. I trust that Mr. Wolf will find an alternative deserving charity that will warmly welcome his financial generosity.
Hilarious that other photographers and/or Jon Wolf with a fake screen name have jumped on here to defend it.
Bottom line… all situations are not the same. And the Christina Green death was not an opportunity for a cash grab, or as humanresourcemed calls it, “a legitimate revenue stream.” It’s sick. I hold in higher regard fat people who sue McDonalds for feeding them unhealthy food.
And I’m pretty sure many photographers sell the copyright when they sell digital images nowadays so no, it’s probably not that obvious.
The photographer with the loughner pics probably sent them to the media himself and asked to be credited.
Mr. Wolf donating the money wasn’t him trying to teach the media a lesson. It’s him trying to look like a great generous man by donating money that doesn’t come out of his own pocket.
Has anyone heard whether Wolf is suing the Green family as well?
I got a chuckle out of Tucson Doc (but I doubt he’s a real “Doc”). He wrote:”And I’m pretty sure many photographers sell the copyright when they sell digital images nowadays…”
So, you’re “pretty sure” about that are you? Why don’t you bring a professional photo
taken of you or a family member into a photo lab and see if they will make another copy?
Here’s a hint…they won’t because it would violate that photographer’s copy write. One way Photographers make money is selling the same image multiple times to different clients. They do not lose their ownership of that image by selling its use.
I have a riddle for you.
Q:What’s the difference between news media using Jon Wolf’s photos without his permission and Lindsay Lohan (allegedly) pilfering a $2500 necklace from a jewelry store?
A: Absolutely no difference. Stealing is stealing.
Jon, the media did not steal your photo. The Green family gave it to them. Did you miss that part of the article?
Jon, i said that because i bought the digital images from my wedding and they gave me the copyright. yes it was a professional photographer, and yes he charged a lot extra for that. but for me it was worth it.
so my point is, why would someone assume the Greens didn’t get the same thing from you?
I’m sorry, I’m for copyrights and all, but this just plain sux. Isn’t it bad enough that Christina-Taylor was taken from us in the most tragic of means, that we have to endure news of litigation over her image. The guy isn’t even her family, that’s what so upsetting about this.
Tu Nidito was right to reject this money.
John Wolf is wrong to attempt to collect on a personal tragedy. This is a new low.
I was devastated when I saw the misleading perception created by this article. The writer neglected to communicate three important things:
1.) Christina’s portrait was photographed in the Green’s house by several of the media and then sold and distributed by others.
2.) The Greens were consulted at the very beginning of this process and they are on board, particularly knowing that charity will benefit from money collected.
3.) Tu Nidito was on board until the threat of a negative spin from this publication frightened them and the result will be that this charity, so important to our Tucson community, will not benefit from much needed funds. Money collected will now benefit another local charity.
Had the writer reported completely, the readers would have learned that money collected will benefit charity instead of inaccurately reporting that Jon Wolf was earning money for himself. This should also have been an opportunity to enlighten the readers about a charity that provides much needed support to children and their families that have experienced a tragedy and may have encouraged many of the readers to also contribute. I personally have contributed to Tu Nidito for many years in support of their fine work for our community.
Money collected will be donated in Christina’s name.
To all who read this please understand that prior to initiation of this process all those affected were consulted and this was and still is meant for charity to benefit our community.
Jon Wolf
Jon explain what you mean by the media sold and distributed the image. Did they not just videotape it to use in their coverage of Christina’s death? To show the public what she looks like? Is that not the image the Greens chose to let the world remember her by?
And wouldn’t that be compensation enough to you? To know the image was so special to them that they want the world to remember their daughter through that image? Please explain why that’s not good enough for you?
The Greens were probably afraid you’d sue them too.
Instead you want to make yourself look really good to the charity by being Robin Hood Wolf.
Personally i think the article was more than fair to you. It could have been a lot more critical of your money grab in the face of tragedy.
This is blood money, Jon. You are sick.
Tu Nidito got it right. Jon Wolf, you may be technically correct to insist on your copyright protection, but this one would have been best left untouched. You need to rethink this one, like really fast.
Jon,
I agree with the above posts. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to profit off the death of a little girl involved in the Tucson tragedy. You would’ve never donated the money had it not been for people becoming aware of your money making scheme.
As the gentleman above posted, I’ll wait to see if you follow through with the donation to charity. The only way you’ll change my mind is to offer full disclosure once things are settled. But I doubt you will. I hope the people of Tucson remember this.
I hope you registered that image immediately after you took it with the copyright office, Jon.
Jon,
The Green family has suffered a terrible loss. They had chosen a beautiful picture of their daughter to present and to be remembered by the Tucson community. Your selfish actions in trying to cash in on this trajedy is disgusting. I hope all who seek a photographer in the future will remember your disrespect for this grieving family.
Tu Nidito did the right thing by refusing to be part of your ill gotten gains. I hope that everyone will make a contribution to them to make up for what they are losing by making a choice to disassociate themselves with Jon Wlofe’s actions.
Wolf contacted the family immediately after the shooting and had after news organizations had photographed the uncle outside his house, in the street, holding the framed image so the world could see what his niece looked like. Wolf had Christina’s father sign a document releasing the rights to the photograph to Wolf. There obviously was a question in Wolf’s mind that he may not have owned the rights. Once the attorney and Wolf had that document in hand, the two started their litigation and threats with news organizations that published the image. Christina Green’s father has said via other family members that he didn’t know that he was signing a document that would enable Greenberg to threaten copyright lawsuits against national media outlets who had published the image of his daughter.
The ignorance of photograpic copyright laws displayed in these comments is staggering in their scope. Regardless of how one feels about Mr. Wolf’s actions, at the least be educated in your opinion.
The following is one good website that explains the rules in an easy to grasp way. I would encourage people to get the true facts and discount the incorrect information as suggested by posters like Tucson Doc and Prophotog.
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
Wise-Guy (A professional photographer but not Jon Wolf)
Wise-guy
I’m sure its not just sheer ignorance that’s being posted here. I’m sure the people who seem to be “In the know” are limited in what they can say due to litigation. Just like Jon Wolf. I doubt he’s speaking freely on the subject.
You know what I’ve learned from this? To never, EVER use any “professional” photographer that doesn’t give me sole and absolute ownership of any image of me or my family. Pros are going go out of business just like the music companies…wake up, it’s the 21st century, new business model, DEAL WITH IT.
Hang in there, Jon. As a fellow photographer, I get the “isn’t just knowing your photo is famous enough compensation for you?” all the time. The fact that a little girl was murdered causes many people to go emotionally off the deep end and lash out at the slightest provocation. The media spin on this story is shameful and I’m disheartened that so many people have leapt to the conclusion that another bottom-feeding paparazzi vulture is greedily trying to profit from someone’s tragedy when the reality requires thoughtful mental clarity. Sadly, when it comes to an innocent little girl being brutally murdered, the nuances of copyright law gets trampled pretty easily.
Jon wolf was a respected name in this community before now. But this litigation, though perfectly legal and his right to pursue, is slimy and disgusting. Go to Jon Wolf Photography for my family’s portraits after this? No way.
I believe the copyright holds with the photographer unless the client has made other arrangements. Jon Wolf may be legally correct in this matter but the public perception is he is exploiting the death of Christina Green for his own benefit. This can’t be good for business and one wonders if he thought this out thoroughly before he went forward. There are already negative comments on his company’s Facebook page. The honorable way forward is to donate ALL of his net proceeds to charity, instead of a “substantial portion”.
@ Wiseguy: “prophotog” isn’t posting incorrect information at all. If a photographer registers images with the copyright office before they are published, they are able to collect more in “damages,” than if it’s unregistered. They can certainly still collect damages if there is infringement, however, the amount is generally less than if it’s registered prior to publication. Of course, you knew that since you’re a “professional photographer.”
Freethinker, You’ve hit the nail on the head. The copyright wasn’t important until it became seen by the public. If Jon Wolf was confident it was his copyrighted property, why get another signature – after the fact?
Sasabe2, I went to the URL http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html you suggested. The key here is FAIR USE as it applies in this situation. And, how much DAMAGE did the copyright holder incur. The photo in question wasn’t for retail sale, and most likely was not going to be sold for example, ad agencies, or for use by graphic artists withing other final products, I would think the amount of damage ‘inflicted’ upon Mr. Wolf wouldn’t amount to very much. There is not financial loss here. Just damage to his ego.
IMHO if he his lawyers are milking money from the media, they are paying Wolf off so they don’t get any bad publicity. If they go to court, they’d more than likely win. I hope some outlets will take it to court.
Perhaps Mr. Wolf is using this particular situation to enforce a principle of law which he feels very strongly about, without full consideration of the negative blow-back from the community. Sometimes it’s not the reality of a situation, it’s the perception
From the webpage:
Q. Are there any times that I can use a copyrighted work without risking infringement?
A. Yes. The concept of fair use permits the utilization of copyrighted materials for certain purposes. For example, a newspaper can publish copyrighted works for purposes of reporting news and a teacher can make multiple copies of certain works for classroom use without risking infringement. In order to determine if a use is fair or is an infringement, one must determine how much of the copyrighted work is used and the impact this use will have on the potential market for the copyrighted work. If large portions of a copyrighted work are used or if the use lessons the potential market for the work, there will be infringement.
Q. What are the damages for an infringement?
A. The owner of a copyright can always claim whatever damages he has actually sustained as a result of an infringement plus whatever profits were earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of a work. In addition, if the copyright to a work which was infringed was registered with the Copyright Office either prior to the infringement or within 90 days after first publication, there are alternative damages that can be awarded. The owner of the copyright can elect to seek the greater of either his actual damages plus the profits earned by the infringer, or damages of up to $100,000 plus attorney’s fees and court costs. The total damages that can be awarded by a court depends upon the degree of willfulness of the infringer.
“
There are two issues colliding here. One is the unspeakable tragedy of Christina’s murder. The other is the property rights that Jon Wolf has in the image that he made. There is no serious legal doubt that Wolf is in the right. There is also no doubt that making money off of such a tragedy is distasteful to the general public.
Jon Wolf may be within his legal rights, but he was unprepared for the public backlash from a public that does not understand copyright law. Photographers make money from images of tragedy all the time. Unfortunately, the juxtaposition of circumstances in this case left Wolf dangling in the public eye, vulnerable to the outcries of a public that is still shocked by the tragedy of the shootings.
Mark Loundy
http://www.loundy.org/commoncents/
Twitter: @MarkLoundy
NewsJunkie,
This case is not remotely close to Fair Use. If it were, then no photojournalist could make money from any of their works.
Mark Loundy
http://www.loundy.org/commoncents/
Twitter: @MarkLoundy
Mark Loundy,
Then to what does this apply, “…For example, a newspaper can publish copyrighted works for purposes of reporting news.”
NewsJunkie, I didn’t recommend the site, wiseguy did. I realize Jon has a right to do what he’s doing but I think just because he can doesn’t mean he should.
I think there is more to the story and I’ll wait for the Greens to comment and see how it plays out.
Photographer wrote: “Wiseguy: “prophotog” isn’t posting incorrect information at all.”
Prophotog wrote: “I hope you registered that image immediately after you took it with the copyright office, Jon.”
From the website:
“Q. How do I copyright my works?
A copyright originates at the moment a work is created.. . For a photograph, the copyright is created at the moment the image is developed. If a photograph is taken with a modern digital camera, the copyright originates at the time the image is saved on a computer disk or on a hard drive…
Q. Do I have to file anything in Washington, D.C., in order to get a copyright?
A. No. A copyright is secured automatically when a work is created. This concept is frequently misunderstood. Some people still believe that there are formalities required in order to create a copyright. This is not true. Under the latest version of the Copyright Act, neither publication nor registration with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is required in order to secure full copyright protection. When a work is created, it is automatically copyrighted.
Q. What is registration?
A. Although a copyright is created automatically when a work is created, there is a procedure for registering a copyright with the Library of Congress. Remember, registration is not required for copyright protection.”
Prophotog leaves the suggestion that an image must be registered in order to be covered by copyright protection which as we see above is untrue. If he meant something else, his writing was unclear and incomplete. But Mr. “photographer”, since you call yourself one I’m sure you knew that.
Wise-Guy, I guess you’re right. Jon Wolf is a hero. His business should thrive because of this.
Tucson Doc, there are two seperate issues here: misunderstandings/misinformation about what a copyrighted photo is, the other being perceptions of Mr. Wolf’s actions. I tried to clear up fallacies about copyrighting and hopefully you’ve learned something.
I believe Sasabee23 said it best regarding Wolf’s actions, “I think there is more to the story and I’ll wait for the Greens to comment and see how it plays out.” I too don’t believe we know all the facts about what’s going on.
The photographer has every right to go after the media for defamation of character. Jon Wolf is probably ruined and Tu Nidito is out this generous gift.
You wouldn’t vilify a funeral director for profiting from the loss of others. I think most agree that they provide a necessary and comforting service.
The media is at fault also for dragging the Green family through this tragedy again and yanking at your heart strings and profiting from this “story” themselves. The media should have done their research and approached the photographer for permission or license in the first place, or simply pay the settlement quietly—fair and square. But now you have a lot of bad feelings and media executives smirking from their private jets and the greens of their country club estates. I think Jon Wolf deserves the benefit of doubt here. Don’t trust everything you read. The media is behind this swindle.
A funeral director who facilitates funerals is doing his job.
A news station that reports news stories is doing its job.
A portrait photographer who photographs a family who hires him is doing his job.
The difference is Jon Wolf is a portrait photographer who took an opportunity to benefit from the tragedy. Everyone else was doing their jobs. So please don’t compare apples to oranges.
Another off-base comparison people keep bringing up, is those who photographed the tragedy and sold the pictures.
If Jon Wolf was photographing the tragedy and the aftermath and selling the pictures no one would care because he would be receiving money to do his job.
He photographed Christina Green when she was very much alive, and presumably was compensated by the family. Doing his job. But then he saw an opportunity to make more money BECAUSE OF THE FACT SHE DIED. That’s not doing his job. that’s a money grab. Just the type of lawsuit that everyone hates. That’s why everyone is disgusted.
I’ve know Jon Wolf for many decades. This IS how Jon does things. He is an opportunist and thoughtless. This is just an example that has gone over the top… He’s been behaving in this manner for years. He’s only benevolent to Jon Wolf.