www.bloomberg.com said:Paolo Pizzetti, a photographer from Siena, Italy, sued Leibovitz in U.S. District Court in New York, alleging she misappropriated photos he took and used them in advertising campaign.
Pizzetti says Leibovitz hired him to shoot photographs of scouting locations for an ad campaign for LavAzza, the Italian coffee company, in April 2008. He said he photographed the Trevi Fountain in Rome and Plaza San Marco in Venice and images of other sites for her and sent her the images digitally.
Leibovitz later informed him she wouldn’t be traveling to Italy, he said, and Pizzetti said he doesn’t believe she ever traveled there for the ad campaign. Later, when LavAzza released its calendar of Leibovitz photos in October, he noticed two of his scouting pictures had been used with models superimposed were in it, including the calendar’s cover.
‘Same Bird’
A comparison of the plaza photo shows “the same wet weather conditions, cloud formation and the same bird in the upper left portion of the photograph,” Pizzetti said in the complaint.
“It is clear that the Leibovitz defendants copied the Plaza work authored by Pizzetti and edited it,” he said. “At no point did the Leibovitz defendants convey to Pizzetti that she planned on using his Trevi photograph and his Plaza photograph in the calendar or request his permission to do so.”
He seeks a court order requiring Leibovitz to stop using the images and $150,000 per infringement of his images as well as other unspecified damages.
The thing that needs to be known is what was in the contract betweeen the two of them and if indeed the images in question are indeed Pizetti's. The other thing is what role LaVazza had in the final product. Before you know that, you can't pass judgement...
I think that's an important observation. It used to be the case in UK law the copyright in a photograph belonged to the commissioner rather than the photographer, though that's been changed and copyright is normally vested in the photographer. In the past, this meant, for example, that a wedding photographer might own the negatives but the copyright belonged to whoever had engaged him, but now, the photographer owns copyright too, unless a deal has been struck. I think there are also considerations for where a photographer is taking photographs as part of his employment, where he may not automatically have copyright. But as the remark above alludes, it's not always clear-cut, and it's best not to judge the issue until more is known ; undoubtedly it's going to be a court that decides.The thing that needs to be known is what was in the contract betweeen the two of them
Everyone loves to bash Annie, or engage in a bit of schadenfreud (sp?) because she's so successful...but folks always love to do that with the biggies...Microsoft, Starbucks are two examples.
Maybe so, but look, she conducts her business by relying very heavily on assistants, so this sort of thing was inevitable. I certainly don't wish her ill.... nor do I wish any photographer ill... I just don't like her business model nor do I like the way PS manipulation has crept into the work of artists who were previously well capable of working without it. I mean, does A.L. want to be remembered as a photographer... or as a person who puts her initials on computer graphics just to make some money?
As for Microsoft, well their OS sucks (speaking as someone who routinely works with many flavours of unix, irix, the mac OS as well as all versions of windows from 2000 through the latest incarnation). As market share well demonstrates, Microsoft is not delivering what a lot of people want. And a credible argument can be made that they design flaws into their software to force further upgrades, and I still don't forgive them for trying to take over java. As for Starbucks, their coffee places below lower-cost competitors such as McDonald's in blind taste tests and it is well known that the only advantage they have is caffeine content and price point... not taste. Personally, I drink Starbucks only if truly desperate and unable to find a real arabica brew nearby. So, in my opinion, those are unfortunate examples that you cite
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2009/09/06/leibovitz-lawsuit-italian.html
...what the f***? A $24million loan, for what? I seriously don't understand what is going on here...
hi keith
... it has been the norm for a long time
to have the assistant do a lot of work and
the studio head signs their name to it ..
..
Steve-
What is your source? Your statements run contrary to every news report on her situation I've seen- some of which debunk the "gay tax" theory directly.
Then don't post IIRC stuff, state your sources before you post and use citations/links.
Your post #11 re Windows and Starbucks just proves my point. Siriusly... ;-)
Go back and read my post again.
Do you know what IIRC means? If not, look it up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?