"Can't the photographer sue these ppl for i his iconic imag?"
...this is a "reimagining" of a "concept"...
...no portion of the original photo was used...
...except for the flag image which is public domain...
Yes, a photographer can legally sue for the unauthorized use of an iconic image [1, 2]
While "sharing a meme" for fun is rarely litigated, the creator holds exclusive rights to their work [3, 4] .
Why They Can Sue
Copyright Ownership: In the U.S., the photographer (or their agency) automatically owns the copyright to an image the moment it is captured [5, 6] .
Infringement for Profit: Using a copyrighted image for commercial gain—like selling shirts, mugs, or using it in advertisements—is a direct violation of copyright law [1, 7] .
Derivative Works: The copyright holder has the exclusive right to create or authorize "derivative works," which technically includes modified versions or memes of the original photo [8, 9] .
Common Defenses & Challenges
Fair Use: Users often claim "fair use" for purposes like parody, commentary, or news reporting [10, 11] . However, courts use a four-factor test that weighs the commercial nature of the use and how much of the original work was changed [11, 12] .
Impracticality of Lawsuits: Litigation is expensive. While technical infringement happens constantly with viral images, photographers often only sue when a business makes significant money from the image, such as in the Grumpy Cat lawsuit where the owner was awarded over $700,000 [11, 13, 14] .
Example: The Bernie Sanders Mittens Photo
The iconic photo of Senator Bernie Sanders in mittens was taken by Brendan Smialowski for Agence France-Presse (AFP) [10, 15] .
Commercial Use: If a brand used that photo for a "Big Sale" ad without permission, it would likely be considered infringement [16] .
Charity Exception: Sanders himself used the image for charity merchandise, raising $1.8 million [17] . Even so, legally, he did not have an "unlimited right" to use the photo just because he was the subject; he still had to navigate copyright ownership [18] .
"Can't the photographer sue these ppl for i his iconic imag?"
...this is a "reimagining" of a "concept"...
...no portion of the original photo was used...
...except for the flag image which is public domain...
Yes, a photographer can legally sue for the unauthorized use of an iconic image [1, 2]
While "sharing a meme" for fun is rarely litigated, the creator holds exclusive rights to their work [3, 4] .
Why They Can Sue
Copyright Ownership: In the U.S., the photographer (or their agency) automatically owns the copyright to an image the moment it is captured [5, 6] .
Infringement for Profit: Using a copyrighted image for commercial gain—like selling shirts, mugs, or using it in advertisements—is a direct violation of copyright law [1, 7] .
Derivative Works: The copyright holder has the exclusive right to create or authorize "derivative works," which technically includes modified versions or memes of the original photo [8, 9] .
Common Defenses & Challenges
Fair Use: Users often claim "fair use" for purposes like parody, commentary, or news reporting [10, 11] . However, courts use a four-factor test that weighs the commercial nature of the use and how much of the original work was changed [11, 12] .
Impracticality of Lawsuits: Litigation is expensive. While technical infringement happens constantly with viral images, photographers often only sue when a business makes significant money from the image, such as in the Grumpy Cat lawsuit where the owner was awarded over $700,000 [11, 13, 14] .
Example: The Bernie Sanders Mittens Photo
The iconic photo of Senator Bernie Sanders in mittens was taken by Brendan Smialowski for Agence France-Presse (AFP) [10, 15] .
[1] https://capessokol.com
[2] https://landrypllc.com
[3] https://www.pixeladies.com
[4] https://www.nolo.com
[5] [https://blog.galalaw.com](https://blog.galalaw.com/post/102gksl/image- rights-and-their-clash-with-copyright-law-new-challenges-and-new-horizons)
[6] https://www.reddit.com
[7] https://www.studocu.com
[8] https://www.quora.com
[9] https://www.suniplaw.com [ 10] https://capessokol.com
[11] https://silblawfirm.com
[12] https://christinemarielauture.com
[13] https://www.wilcoxmyers.com
[14] https://creative-boost.com
[15] https://www.suniplaw.com
[16] https://www.capessokol.com
[17] https://vtdigger.org
[18] https://www.capessokol.com
copied/pasted AI Drivel
Thanks.
I think he should sue since their derivative work is mocking his image.