From Gigi Hadid to Goop: A Running List of Paparazzi Copyright Lawsuits

Image: Complaint

Law

From Gigi Hadid to Goop: A Running List of Paparazzi Copyright Lawsuits

With the rise in social media usage over the past two decades or so and the decline in conventional advertising formats has come a surge in ad efforts on social media platforms. This push to meet consumers where they are has meant that the jobs of influential figures – from ...

February 15, 2024 - By TFL

From Gigi Hadid to Goop: A Running List of Paparazzi Copyright Lawsuits

Image : Complaint

Case Documentation

From Gigi Hadid to Goop: A Running List of Paparazzi Copyright Lawsuits

With the rise in social media usage over the past two decades or so and the decline in conventional advertising formats has come a surge in ad efforts on social media platforms. This push to meet consumers where they are has meant that the jobs of influential figures – from fashion industry influencers to Hollywood celebrities – have expanded to include building and maintaining sizable social media followings in order to leverage those followings for big-money advertising partnerships. IMG Models’ Luiz Mattos, the agent behind the likes of supermodels Gigi and Bella Hadid, and actress Priyanka Chopra, put it well when he said, “These days, models’ jobs don’t end when they leave the studio or the runway,” and absolutely extends to “posting on social [media].”

One of the glaring side effects of such increased attention to social media – paired with a handful of notably aggressive lawyers – is the growing number of copyright infringement lawsuits that are being filed against individuals and brands over their unauthorized use of others’ images either of themselves, in the case celebrities and models, or of others in their wares when it comes to brands. Regardless of who appears in a photo (as copyright law does not award rights based on the subject of a photo, although at least some, such as Gigi Hadid, have taken to arguing that joint copyright rights should exist in some cases), the individual(s) behind the creation of a photo, almost exclusively paparazzi photographers (or their employers) in these instances, are the copyright holders, and as a result, any use of images by individuals other than the copyright holder gives rise to copyright infringement claims. 

With the foregoing in mind, here is a non-exhaustive (running) look at some of the recently-filed paparazzi v. celebrity and paparazzi v. brand cases …

FEBRUARY 2024 – Stewart v. Project 1920, Inc., 5:24-cv-00884 (N.D. Cal.)

Photographer Michael Stewart is suing Project 1920 d/b/a Senreve for posting his copyright-protected image of Angelina Jolie on social media and its e-commerce site to promote its brand. Looking to get ahead of any claims that the defendant might make in order to chip away at the originality/creativity of the image, Stewart asserts that he “personally selected the subject matter, timing, lighting, angle, perspective, depth, lens, and camera equipment used to capture the image.”

FEBRUARY 2024 – Barbera v. I.AM.GIA (US) LLC, 2:24-cv-01263 (C.D. Cal.)

Robert Barbera is suing fashion brand I.AM.GIA for posting an image he took of Kendall Jenner to its social media accounts without authorization. 

2023

NOVEMBER 2023 – Xposure Photo Agency Inc. v. Christopher Brown, 2:23-cv-10103 (C.D. Cal.)

AUGUST 2023 – Chosen Figure LLC v. Bella Hadid, 1:23-cv-06757 (SDNY)

Bella Hadid has been hit with another copyright lawsuit, this time over an image of herself “outside an apartment door” that she posted to her Instagram account on August 12, 2020. (The image has since been deleted from Hadid’s account.) Plaintiff Chosen Figure claims that it is “a professional photography [company] by trade” and the “legal and rightful owner of the photographs [that it] licenses to online and print publications.” Chosen Figure’s photographs are “original, creative works in which [it] owns protectable copyright interests,” the company claims in the complaint, alleging that Hadid infringed such interests when she “volitionally selected, copied, stored and displayed [its] copyright protected photograph” on her Instagram account “without permission or authorization” from Chosen Figure.

Setting out a single claim of copyright infringement in its August 2 complaint, Chosen Figure argues that Hadid “has received a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringement,” “a large number of people have viewed the unlawful copies of the photograph on [her] social media account,” “at all times, [Hadid] had the ability to stop the reproduction and display of [the] copyrighted material,” and her “use of the photograph, if widespread, would harm [Chosen Figure’s] potential market for the photograph.”

JUNE 2023 – James Fortune v. Micky Dolenz, 2:23-cv-05156 (C.D. Cal.)

MAY 2023 – John Carta v. Garcelle Beauvais, 2:23-cv-04093 (C.D. Cal.)

APRIL 2023 BackGrid USA, Inc. v. Tales of Vintage, Inc. et al, 2:23-cv-03124 (C.D. Cal.)

A luxury knit clothing company doing business as JoosTricot is on the receiving end of a new copyright suit for posting “at least two” paparazzi-lensed photos of Abigail Spencer to its Facebook and Instagram pages along with the caption “Ugh we love a good paparazzi picture … [],” thereby, “acknowledging that the photos were professionally shot and not authored by JoosTricot.”

APRIL 2023 BackGrid USA, Inc. v. Ian Charms, LLC et al, 2:23-cv-03089 (C.D. Cal.)

Ian Charms has also been hit with a new copyright infringement suit, with BackGrid arguing in its complaint that the celeb-approved jewelry company “reproduced, distributed, displayed, and created unauthorized derivative works of celebrity photographs on its Instagram account without consent or license.” Of note, according to BackGrid, is that Ian Charms “even concealed the fact that it did not own the rights, [as] when Instagram user nina877711 asked in the comments of the photos ‘Can you post pictures when you dont (sic.) have the rights?,’ Ian Charms responded ‘yes I took this with my iphone X.’ That statement was not true. Ian Charms is not the author of the photographs.”

BackGrid alleges that it has identified “at least nine instances of infringement by way of the unlawful reproduction and display of [its] photographs” by Ian Charms.


This is an excerpt from a timeline was published exclusively for TFL Enterprise subscribers. For access to our most up-to-date lawsuit tracker and others like it, inquire today about how to sign up for an Enterprise subscription.

related articles