The facts
Maria Marquis, a movie star, wanted to sell her multi-million dollar Beverly Hills home. Her assistant contacted William Johnson, a listing agent, and gave him a memory stick containing some photos, telling him he could use them for the listing. The photos on the memory stick were taken by photographer Jessica Starzinize for an article in Starz Weekly regarding Ms. Marquis’ rise to fame and her at-the-time new home. Mr. Johnson did not ask the assistant who took the photos or whether he was specifically authorized by the photographer to use them for the listing. Mr. Johnson then created an MLS listing using six photos he personally took, four photos from the memory stick, and two photos he found on the internet. Mr. Johnson assumed that the photos found on the internet were “free” and he did not need to seek permission to use them. He also cropped the photos from the internet (thus removing the copyright symbol) to fit the size requirements for the MLS listing. Mr. Johnson’s agency, Mansion Realty, placed the listing (including photos) on its website, Facebook page, and other social media sites.
About a month later, Ms. Starzinize learned from a friend that the photos she had taken for the Starz Weekly article were being used to sell Ms. Marquis’ home. Ms. Starzinize had provided a copy of the photos to Ms. Marquis as a courtesy, but she never authorized the use of the photos for any other purpose. Ms. Starzinize sued Mansion Realty and Mr. Johnson for copyright infringement and removing the copyright symbol on one photo (turns out that one of the two photos found on the internet was also taken by Ms. Starzinize).
The result
Even though Mr. Johnson and Mansion Realty did not intentionally infringe on Ms. Starzinize’s copyrights, she sought to maximize her damages and attempted to find out whether Mansion Realty had used any other works she authored as well as the identity of the authors of other photos used by Mansion Realty and its agents in listings, on its website, and social media sites. This put Mansion Realty at risk of other lawsuits being filed. The case was settled for more than $200,000. One key consideration was that claims under federal law for infringement of registered works and for removing the copyright symbol could result in significant damages and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Risk factors
Risk factor #1
When the assistant turned over the memory stick, the photos were of unknown origin and the agent did nothing to find out who took the photos or where they came from. While it is possible that Ms. Marquis or her assistant obtained permission for the photos to be used for the listing, the agent should not have assumed this.
Risk factor #2
Many people assume that if photos (or videos) appear on the internet anyone can use them for any purpose without permission. They sometimes assume that if it is on the internet and there is no copyright symbol or watermark that means there is no copyright protection. The opposite is true: all of these works have some form of copyright protection that is not lost just because they are on the internet.
Risk factor #3
In addition to using the photo without permission, the agent made another mistake. Federal law prohibits the altering of a work such as a photo to remove the copyright symbol or a watermark. Even though the agent did not intentionally remove this “copyright management information,” the agent/agency could still be liable.
*The claim scenario is strictly documented for illustrative purposes only and provides an example of what a policy could cover. It is intended to provide a general overview of the program described. Please remember only the insurance policy can give actual terms, coverage, amounts, conditions and exclusions. Program availability and coverage are subject to individual underwriting criteria.
