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. According to the lawsuit, Donovan contends that the church unlawfully downloaded his copyrighted image to use in its promotional activities. He reported the unauthorized use to the church on two occasions, June 21 and July 20, 2023, but the issue remains unresolved.
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. Donovan is seeking legal recompense for the alleged infringement and is requesting the court to prohibit the church from using any of his photographs in the future.
The suit was filed in the US District Court for the District of South Carolina on November 21, 2023. The church has until February 20, 2024 to respond to the filing.
Alex Cooke wrote:
"He reported the unauthorized use to the church on two occasions, June 21 and July 20, 2023, but the issue remains unresolved."
It is interesting that we are not told about how the church responded to his communications to them. To me, the key to this whole thing lies in how they responded, or whether they responded.
If they responded, "we're sorry - we are non-profit, and didn't realize that we would have to pay for photo usage since we are not selling anything ... we will gladly remove the image from our website ASAP."
If they responded that way, and that wasn't good enough for Erin, and he wants not only an apology but is also demanding money, then shame on him!
But, if they failed to respond at all after he contacted them twice, then I think he is not being unreasonable to pursue compensation for copyright infringement.
So, in short, we are not given enough info about the case to know how to feel about it, nor to know who to side with. I am interested in knowing more of the details about the communications back and forth between Erin and the church.
It doesn't matter if or how they responded. If there was violation and removal of copyright notice, she is entitled to sue. Non profit doesn't mean that the church can't promote to get more donations. I think that you are expending tax exemption to copyright exemption, but that's not a thing.
I am not talking at all about what the law entitles one to do. We all know that already. I am talking about what the reasonable, easy-going response would be. I am concerned only with the things that are NOT black and white, the subjective realm that has to do with how I feel about things, not what the law technically says.
Sounds like soooooo many people are kneejerk reacting on giving the thieves a pass simply because they are a church and "made a mistake." While in the real world, they used property without permission, and are STILL using that property without permission.
I am certainly not giving the church a pass. We do not know enough at this point to give them a pass or to condemn them. No sense having a big loud shouting opinion about this when we do not even know what was said between the photographer and the church.
A miniscule incident of copyright is worthy of time at Fstoppers?
I bet if this did not involve a church it would have been completely passed over.
They've actually posted about other copyright infringements prior to this that were not a church, so I doubt it had anything to do with it being a church.
Theft is theft and it's compounded in this case because it's a Church doing the stealing. They clearly searched for an image and copied it onto their website and perhaps elsewhere. Do you think the Church staff works for free? I shot for a National Nonprofit regularly for 2.5 years and they had good budgets to shoot images, so I have no issue with the photographer defending their Intellectual Property.
My church staff works for free. Only the pastor is paid, while the secretary, the youth pastor, and the person who does our nonprofit accounting are strictly volunteers. The music leader is also a volunteer, as is everyone involved with the music and with all of the studies and activities that we do for all age groups throughout the week.
SOMEONE IS getting paid, volunteers are just that VOLUNTEERS, using someone else's property WITHOUT permission is NOT the same.
In my comment that you are replying to, I said nothing about the church in the article, nor about photo usage. I was just making isolated factual statements about my church. Please do not infer anything from my comment that I did not actually say.
I have a gut feeling there's more to this story. How did the church, assuming that they were looking for a photo of the mountains, find his image? And then, how did he know this small church in SC used it?
Anthony,
Anyone can do a Google Image Search and use their own images to see anywhere they have ever been used online. Many photographers, particularly those who sell their images as stock, do this regularly to seek out any unlicensed usage. You did know this already, didn't you? I mean it has been common knowledge among photographers for years and years and years.
Yes, I'm aware. The last time I used Google Image Search it returned images that were "similar" to mine. I'm simply too busy to reverse image search the thousands of images I deliver to clients each year.
Right ... I was not, of course, suggesting that you do an image search. I was just explaining how easy and normal it is for a stock photographer to find his/her images anywhere they are used online. I pointed that out because in your initial comment you seemed to be unaware of how common it is for photographers to do this, because you thought there was "something more going on here" due to the fact that the photographer was aware of the usage on the church's site.
Just quoting their book: (Romans)
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
The photographer has to prove a few things to get actual compensation. That they were "stolen",(yes) that it was malicious and purposeful (maybe) and that it caused actual calculable damages (probably not much if any) if the only thing the photographer did was use a watermark and/or a "c" for copyright. And did not register this particular individual photographic work with the U.S. copyright office then they are only able to recover actual "fair market value" of their work... And that value is almost certainly less than the lawyer fees to sue.... A pyrrhic victory. Lawyers charging by percentage fee from winnings won't touch this... So it probably came out of pocket for retainer. So this guy has money to burn and a point to make. But will it change anything. Probably not. Sueing a church for this is like beating up a cripple in a wheelchair cuz they rolled over your foot.
Most of what you say is true, UNLESS the photographer received surly responses to the two communications (emails?) that he sent.
There are a lot of missing details in this article - we really aren't given much information at all about what happened between the photographer and the church, prior to the photographer filing the lawsuit.
Also, we don't know that the church is the entity that removed the watermark because we don't know if the church got the image directly from the photographer's website or from someone else who may have removed the watermark. Or it could have been their website designer who did it.
And then the designer quit so no one is guilty or may be his little sister sneaked the picture in and he didn't see it. Wouldn't it be great if the law worked that way? Nope.
Using stolen property doesn't excuse possession of that stolen property.
Why is the image for the article an AI image? Does fstoppers not respect photographers?
Before retiring, I was responsible in managing a large research and engineering department of a large company. IP (intellectual property - patents, copyrights, etc.) management consumed a good part of that responsibility. From the minimal information provided in this article, it would seem if the Church responded quickly to the photographer's notification on the infringement, the parties could negotiate a reasonable solution such as removing the posted image and then negotiating the terms of its use. Failure to respond to those notifications resulted in the photographer's lawsuit. I believe this was a strategy to get the Church to respond and negotiate a solution (then the lawsuit could be dropped). I can guarantee that going to court in an IP case can be very expensive to both parties in terms of legal fees and time spent. If one party pursues a jury trial and the courts agree, the process will take a long time and the outcome is not a "sure thing" for either party regardless of what the lawyers say.
I have a suit against a client that went beyond the agreed upon number of images by copying nine images from proof sheets. I have a signed document and we've tried to come to a reasonable settlement but they have drug their feet and do not seem to understand Intellectual Property. My Attorney will receive a percentage of the settlement, a higher percentage if it goes to trial and I like that the former client is chasing to spend more money on legal fees. In the end, they are going to be spending a lot of money including the judgement handed down from the Court.
You gave us more actual information about your case in one short paragraph than we got in the entire article above about that case. Thank you.
I also registered the images with the LOC on the day that I delivered the proofs, it will certainly affect the judgement.
We do not know that the church failed to respond to the photographer. The article says nothing about whether they responded, or how they responded. They may very well have responded and made a very fair offer, but the photographer could be a greedy person who thinks they can suck more money out of them if they file a lawsuit. Or the church may not have responded at all.
It behooves us to assume absolutely nothing. The article has huge gaps in the information it gives us, so we really can't come to any conclusion unless we fill some gaps in ourselves, but that would require assumptions and conjectures, which should always be avoided.