
Media companies fear and photographers love Richard Liebowitz - jseliger
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/richard-liebowitz-why-media-companies-fear-and-photographers-love-this-guy.html
======
brandnewlow
This man is a hero. This story tries to take an even tack with him but fails
to accurately characterize the actions of the media companies. They should not
be excused when “an intern makes a mistake”. If they’re unable to adequately
train their interns then they shouldn’t use interns. And if they can’t afford
well-trained professional editorial workers they should go out of business. I
say this as someone who used to work in media and saw media companies blow up
out of nowhere on the back of fair use abuse (Bleacher Report, HuffPo).

------
yardie
These million dollar companies are worried about paying thousands for a photo
to an a freelancer. Meanwhile individuals deal with bankruptcy, prison, and
even suicide due to these companies suing them for a song, photo, or video.

I shall play the tiniest violin for their troubles.

~~~
killjoywashere
I don't get the sense the CEOs are that worried. It's counsel that's annoyed,
and probably suggested the topic to this writer. Slate, after all, is one of
the affected companies.

~~~
yardie
It’s also counsel that determines and requests the damages when songs and
movies are shared. These lawyers are worried that Leibovitz will file 600
lawsuits but see nothing wrong in filing suits against 1000+ individuals for
their clients.

------
jasonjayr
> _In conversation and in court documents, attorneys who have tangled with
> Liebowitz have vented over what they deem his chronic overvaluation of his
> clients’ claims, his habit of dodging discovery obligations, his disregard
> for the admittedly vague concept of fair use—which, basically, is the
> doctrine that makes it OK for journalists and commentators to quote limited
> portions of copyrighted works without first asking permission. (“Fair use is
> an area that, so far as Richard is concerned, apparently doesn’t exist,” one
> attorney told me.)_

Large media owners also seem to think fair use doesn't exist, and deliberately
make it hard for citizens to exercise fair use. It's interesting to see them
squrim when the shoe is on the other foot. (and the irony of this post is not
lost on me ....)

------
arkades
I appreciate the irony that these media companies leverage the cost of
litigation in order to avoid paying for photos but, when the cost of
litigation is used to extract compensation for their victims, this whole
litigation blackmail thing is just evil and out of control!

I can’t help but feel the article chose to veer too far in the direction of
sympathizing with the serial-thieving companies here. Is the best that could
be said for this guy is hat he’s an ass “of the media’s own making”?

------
ubernostrum
High-pressure tactics based on demanding settlements due to the ruinous cost
of litigation, threats of even more ruinous statutory damages, and all the
other tricks detailed here have been used by media conglomerates against
individuals.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

~~~
vatueil
Are we talking about the same "media companies" though? While many wouldn't
shed a tear for entertainment groups such as the RIAA and other big media
companies, the list of targets includes many newspapers and smaller media
outfits:

> _He sues media companies of all sizes—including Condé Nast, Hearst, Time
> Inc., Univision, Forbes, Barstool Sports, Breitbart News, Business Insider,
> Inside Edition, Zagat, Rolling Stone, the Daily Beast, the Daily Caller, the
> Daily Dot, the Daily Voice, the Village Voice, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News,
> Vox Media, Cox Media, Uproxx Media, and, yes, The Slate Group—and in all
> seasons._

Even if Liebowitz's current attacks on news media are acceptable, I would
worry whether such attacks from him and other lawyers might broaden their
scope in the future. As the article mentions, the recent SDNY ruling that
websites are liable for embedded content may be but the first expansion:
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/federal-judge-says-
emb...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/federal-judge-says-embedding-
tweet-can-be-copyright-infringement)

~~~
ubernostrum
News organizations have engaged in "copyright trolling" too. Your Google
search term for a notorious case is "Righthaven".

~~~
a3n
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven)

------
rrauenza
Tony and Chelsea Northrup describe their experience with suing an Australian
firm that used his photo/her image in product packaging:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0)

It was enlightening how stressful it can be chasing these guys down ...

------
cocacola1
Seems easy to avoid, though.

1) Get permission.

or

2) Use public domain images.

Bam. Problem solved.

~~~
mosselman
Being first with a story is often what media are after, so getting permission
is, I imagine, not usually something they really want to wait for. So yes 2
seems a viable solution or using some sort of subscription for images as
described in the article.

~~~
mikeash
In the electronic age, stories can be updated after the fact. Run with the
images you have permission for, add more later as you obtain more.

------
marcus_holmes
The bloke deserves a medal

------
znpy
So if regular people download music and movies it's "unethical" and "hurts the
industry", but if big corporations make profits photographers' work then it's
"fair use" ?

It really smells like BS to me.

~~~
a3n
If you think of yourself as primarily a resource to governments, law
enforcement and corporations, as they do, then it makes sense.

