Showing posts with label lack of consent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lack of consent. Show all posts

Sunday, December 31, 2023

Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement; Fstoppers, December 28, 2023

 , Fstoppers; Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement

"A photographer is taking legal action against a small church in South Carolina for allegedly using his photograph without consent.

Erin Paul Donovan, a photographer from New Hampshire, has initiated a federal lawsuit against Wightman United Methodist Church in Prosperity, South Carolina. Donovan claims that his photograph, depicting New Hampshire’s White Mountains, was used on the church's website without his permission, specifically as a thumbnail for a sermon video dated June 2021...

The suit further alleges that the church not only used the image without authorization but also removed Donovan's copyright notice, name, and watermark from the photograph as it originally appeared on his website."

Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement; Fstoppers, December 28, 2023

, Fstoppers; Photographer Sues Church Over Copyright Infringement

"A photographer is taking legal action against a small church in South Carolina for allegedly using his photograph without consent.

Erin Paul Donovan, a photographer from New Hampshire, has initiated a federal lawsuit against Wightman United Methodist Church in Prosperity, South Carolina. Donovan claims that his photograph, depicting New Hampshire’s White Mountains, was used on the church's website without his permission, specifically as a thumbnail for a sermon video dated June 2021...

The suit further alleges that the church not only used the image without authorization but also removed Donovan's copyright notice, name, and watermark from the photograph as it originally appeared on his website."

Thursday, October 19, 2023

AI is learning from stolen intellectual property. It needs to stop.; The Washington Post, October 19, 2023

William D. Cohan , The Washington Post; AI is learning from stolen intellectual property. It needs to stop.

"The other day someone sent me the searchable database published by Atlantic magazine of more than 191,000 e-books that have been used to train the generative AI systems being developed by Meta, Bloomberg and others. It turns out that four of my seven books are in the data set, called Books3. Whoa.

Not only did I not give permission for my books to be used to generate AI products, but I also wasn’t even consulted about it. I had no idea this was happening. Neither did my publishers, Penguin Random House (for three of the books) and Macmillan (for the other one). Neither my publishers nor I were compensated for use of my intellectual property. Books3 just scraped the content away for free, with Meta et al. profiting merrily along the way. And Books3 is just one of many pirated collections being used for this purpose...

This is wholly unacceptable behavior. Our books are copyrighted material, not free fodder for wealthy companies to use as they see fit, without permission or compensation. Many, many hours of serious research, creative angst and plain old hard work go into writing and publishing a book, and few writers are compensated like professional athletes, Hollywood actors or Wall Street investment bankers. Stealing our intellectual property hurts."

Monday, July 3, 2023

ChatGPT Maker OpenAI Accused of Misusing Personal, Copyrighted Data; The San Francisco Standard, June 30, 2023

Kevin Truong, The San Francisco Standard; ChatGPT Maker OpenAI Accused of Misusing Personal, Copyrighted Data

"The suit alleges that ChatGPT utilizes "stolen private information, including personally identifiable information, from hundreds of millions of internet users, including children of all ages, without their informed consent or knowledge."

The complaint states that by using this data, OpenAI and its related entities have enough information to replicate digital clones, encourage people's "professional obsolescence" and "obliterate privacy as we know it."

The complaint lists several plaintiffs identified by their initials, including a software engineer who claims that his online posts around technical questions could be used to eliminate his job, a 6-year-old who used a microphone to interact with ChatGPT and allegedly had his data harvested, and an actor who claims that OpenAI stole personal data from online applications to train its system."

Monday, April 23, 2018

New Tattoo Copyright Infringement Case Filed By Artist Who Inked WWE Wrestler Randy Orton; Forbes, April 18, 2018

Darren Heitner, Forbes; New Tattoo Copyright Infringement Case Filed By Artist Who Inked WWE Wrestler Randy Orton

"A new lawsuit will once again test the extent that Copyright Law applies when tattoos are involved. Catherine Alexander, the tattooist who inked WWE wrestler Randy Orton, has filed a lawsuit against WWE and 2K Games (the publisher of video games such as WWE 2K) for allegedly using her designs in a commercial manner and without her consent.
Alexander makes the claim that the video games featuring Orton contain exact replications, in digital design, to multiple tattoos, including a tribal tattoo that she placed on the wrestler's upper back, and that the use constitutes copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, indicates that Alexander even made prior efforts to come to an agreement with the WWE."

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Is The NFL Committing Copyright Infringement By Using Photos Without Consent?; Forbes, 10/23/13

Darren heitner, Forbes; Is The NFL Committing Copyright Infringement By Using Photos Without Consent? : "On October 21, 2013, seven photographers filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the National Football League (NFL), Replay Photos, Getty Images and the Associated Press. The lawsuit requests damages for copyright infringement from all the defendants, damages for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The basis for the action is that the NFL has used photos in violation of the photographers’ copyrights in the same. The photographers further allege that the NFL’s failed to receive consent to use the photos in connection with the NFL’s advertisements, news, promotions and products."