Michael Moore In Legal Trouble With War Photographer

Michal Moore is about to be sued by a celebrated war photographer over his online use of an image.

Independent correspondent Michael Yon took a photo, voted by Time readers the top photo of 2005, of a soldier cradling a bloody, injured Iraqi girl who died shortly thereafter. Moore used the photo without permission on his website michaelmoore.com.

The NY Post reports:

Yon has tried to contact Moore for seven months to discuss his unauthorized use of the poignant snap, but hasn't heard a word back from the director of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Now, the fed-up photojournalist has told his lawyer to ready a lawsuit against Moore for copyright infringement.

The misappropriated photo shows US Army Maj. Mark Bieger cradling an Iraqi girl wounded by car-bomb shrapnel. She died a short time later.

"The implication on Moore's Web site was that our soldiers were somehow responsible for that kid being wounded," Yon's lawyer, John Mason, told Page Six. "That is absolutely not true. She was the victim of an insurgent's car bomb." Yon said: "I've never sued anyone in my life. It looks like Mr. Moore might be the first." Page Six e-mailed Moore for his response, but he didn't get back to us, either.

On his website Yon blogged about it and asked for help funding his fight:

If Mr. Moore and his counsel continue to ignore our correspondence, we will proceed with a lawsuit.

This lawsuit, though, should not be a distraction from combat reporting; the proceedings should be easy and require almost zero hands-on work from me. But it will be potentially costly. I've never sued anyone in my life. Looks like Mr. Moore might be the first. I told one very important person recently about the possible upcoming lawsuit and he said something like, "Someone should drive a stake through that guy's heart." It won't be that bad, but copyright cases are interesting and we have to deal with them often. If you want to help me as I both prepare to return overseas and take on this lawsuit with Mr. Michael Moore, please hit the PayPal button.

SEE THE PHOTO HERE

Comments

[carlgt1]

so is Yon paying the Iraqi parents for selling & exploiting the maiming & death of their child?

I thought not...

[AmandaBC]

Right-wingers don't believe Iraqis are people...
And they believe fair use only applies to them...

[CheshireCat2]

They are angry because the terr0rists could just as easily have waited a block or two and att-acked the patrol away from the kids. Instead, the suicide b0mber drove his car and hit the Stryker when about twenty children were jumping up and down and waving at the soldiers

That is what you missed DemAnda.

Why don't you spend two minutes dehumanizing them?

[hotwire]

Why are you so angry and condescending?

[Rivermont]

Well, gee Amanda, who knew?

There are over 1M lawyers in the US and low and behold, they are all unnecessary because you are the only person qualified to determine how laws shld be interpreted. Never mind that cases on “Fair Use” hve made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you are qualified in other areas of the law, please let the courts know it, so they won’t hve to hear any cases because you hve decided them for them.

Why so many lawyers? Because people interpret the law differently. If there were just one universally accepted interpretation of each law, we wld not need lawyers or judges.

[JulieSA]

"Right-wingers don't believe Iraqis are people..."

What an asto nishin gly si lly, big ot ed statement.

Read Yon's work, and you'll see what he thinks of Iraqis. Don't comment on something you know nothing about. Read his work--all of it, or you're not qualified to comment.

[Meds]

Good question!

[vettrock]

a few comments:
You do not have to apply for copyright in order for a photo to be protected by copyright.
From my understanding, Fair use is not in the copyright law. The concept of Fair use was created out of judical law, ie court rulings. I don't see how using someone else work on your web page and manipulating the story behind it can be consdered fair use.

[AmandaBC]

"From my understanding, Fair use is not in the copyright law."

You're wrong. Title 17, sections 107 through 118. Read it.

[thaneb]

It's easy to Google the relevant text of the statute. Amanda is correct. However there are several things a court would look at to determine if it is fair use and Moore's use of the entire copyrighted image may be a problem. Unlikely as it may seem, if it falls under fair use, "manipulating the story", that is, expressing a point of view, is just the sort of thing protected. Think of copyright as bringing something out of the protection of free speech while fair use brings it back in.

[williamina]

obviously not a lawyer

[AmandaBC]

"However there are several things a court would look at to determine if it is fair use and Moore's use of the entire copyrighted image may be a problem."

The law is generic and applies to all media. In the specific case (a photograph), you can't just use a portion of it, either you can use it all or you can't.

[Bec01]

Guys look at the source. They will probably have to recant the story tomorrow.

[thaneb]

Yes, Post is a tabloid with a viewpoint, however Yon blogs about this on his own site so this threat of suit (and it's only that at this point apparently) is a fact. Perhaps the threat will come to naught.

[Opus007]

You can get the photo on google images. He should have copyrighted it. He is just going after a deep pocket.

[thaneb]

Copyright law changed a few years ago. There is nothing you need do to copyright a creative work. It helps to show intent to put the c in a circle, date and your name but that is not required for the work to be protected.

[AmandaBC]

True, but then again fair use still applies. The very same reason why the photographer didn't need a signed release from the kid's parents... (Somehow, that doesn't seem to bother our right-wing friends. Is it because they think Iraqis aren't people?)

[JTHC75]

What's disturbing about the commentary here (and pretty much every site with comments enabled) is that so much of it just comes down on the level of "I agree with X generally, he must be right in this matter" or "I disagree with Y, he must be evil and wrong." What difference does it make if you think Michael Moore is a patriot or a propagandist? What difference does it make if Michael Yon is Ernie Pyle or a right-wing nutjob? These stances have absolutely no relevance to whether or not Moore has a right to use the photo without Yon's permission. This kind of "My team vs. Your team" method of opining on issues is just plain nauseating.

[eus]

Its kind of weird .. the picture really isnt the photograqphers. Its the dead girls and the soldiers. I hate people taking my picture without asking-- it feels like an intrusion on my privacy. How can anyone sue over a photo like that?

[williamina]

you wouldn't believe the answer

[jokerama]

How does this differ from the Foo Fighters asking McCain to stop using their music in his campaign? They didn't want their song exploited for political purposes. So Yon is some right wing nut; if he doesn't want his photography exploited for Moore's political purposes, shouldn't he be afforded that right? To further complicate things, Moore's website is an important tool for self-promotion. Visitors are able to learn about and purchase his books and films so there is a certainly financial benefit at play here as well.

[Gould123]

Does that little girls family get to sue the photographer for not getting a release to use the picture?

[AmandaBC]

Excellent point to showcase these people's hypocrisy.
They believe "fair use" only applies to them...

[wamg]

Your mistake is applying politics to copyright law. That has nothing to do with any of it. Moore might be able to use the photograph under fair use, or not, depending not only in his use of the photo in relation to what he was saying on his website, but what role the photo played in the site, article, content, etc.

It's a technical argument, not a political one. You won't get it straight until you can think about it without the political stuff you're tossing in.

[calamityjohn]

I am generally a big Michael Moore fan ..
but in this case he is in the wrong and so is your point ..

Unless he has sold them Mr. Yon owns the rights to his image.
Photographers do not need releases from the people in a photo for editorial (news) use .. releases are required for commercial use (By the party using the photo commercially) ..

Moore apparently has used Mr. Yon's photograph without permission .. what motivation he would have for ignoring Mr. Yon's correspondence is beyond me.

[AmandaBC]

"Moore apparently has used Mr. Yon's photograph without permission"

So, you believe comedians who (rightly) make fun of Faux News ask for permission to use their footage? Seriously, do you?

[thaneb]

Do not know if Iraq has a right of publicity. Also there is probably an exception for newsworthy events.

[AmandaBC]

"there is probably an exception for newsworthy events"

Which is exactly why Michael Moore is free to use that photo...

[Gould123]

This picture went every where! You mean he gets to sue all those people who used the picture or posted it, or showed it on T.V or sent it on to other viewers on line/

[racetoinfinity]

No he just wants to sue Michael Moore, apparently, because he is against the Iraq War.

[fairfax8]

If they are as big of a dbag as Moore, then yes.

[AmandaBC]

So, free speech only applies to conservatives, right?

[coastalcarla]

Hold on - I've seen that picture in about a dozen places already. You mean to tell me that every single time I've seen it, someone has gotten permission from this guy? I doubt it. I think he just doesn't like MM.

[AmandaBC]

Exactly. Right-wingers believe free speech and its perks (including the Fair Use clause of the Copyright Act) only apply to the people they like. Ironically, these are the journalists/commentators who blindly back the power, i.e. what free speech is intended to protect citizens from...

[JulieSA]

Here's a Yon post on the subject from back in May when Mo ore first posted the picture.

"I usually freely grant use of my work to truthful, peaceful, non-commercial, non-political outlets. For instance, a church group wanted to use one of my photos for their congregation. I was honored and gave it to them freely. On another occasion, a peaceful, non-profit Islamic organization wanted to use the same photo that Michael Moore has infringed upon (Major Mark Bieger cradling a little girl named Farah), and I was honored to contribute to their peaceful cause. I’ve seen grandmothers use my work in technically illegal ways, but since they’re not a big company, they probably have no idea about copyright, and usually use the work in tasteful, appropriate ways, I just smile and say “Go ahead, Ma’am.”

But frequently, big companies and individuals who are knowledgeable of copyright laws filch my work and use it in ways that many readers consider partisan, highly political or incendiary. When this happens, I usually go after the infringer, and so do my readers."

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/michael-moores-crime.htm

[LorettaSingbiel]

"I was honored to contribute to their peaceful cause."

Michael Moore has been OPPOSED to BUSH'S INVASION & OCCUPATION of IRAQ from DAY ONE!

So Yon DOESN'T consider being AGAINST a CRIMINAL WAR based on LIES and fought for OIL a peaceful cause???

[hugs4u]

A great man like Michael Moore doesnt have to pay any attention to copy right laws, when you have a bungling babbling idiot like bush not paying any attention to the constitution.

[retrocozayshin]

Sue the pants off him. I'm sick of Moore. I like his ideology, but I don't like the way he goes about presenting it. He's a huge egomaniac.

[racetoinfinity]

Nonsense. Everyone has an ego. I doubt you share his views.

[AmandaBC]

10 seconds of checking his profile: BINGO!!

[Con-toons]

Using a photo without permission is a violation of copywrite law. Fact.
Using this law to turn good people into villans, both Moore and the photographer who I would consider good people in a bad postion is just wrong. That little girl is dead because she had the bad luck to be born in Iraq during an illegal occupation. A photo will not change her death or any soldiers death. Why are people arguing, let's just end this.

[AmandaBC]

"Using a photo without permission is a violation of copywrite law. Fact."

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your "facts". Read US Copyright Law, title 17, sections 107 through 118. Also known as "fair use."

[Seattle34]

Calling it fair use in this case will require a critical analysis of the works itself. Is MM commenting on the depth of field of the photograph? Is he commenting on the photographers use of light? No, he's not. He's using a photograph taken by a photojournalist to make a point that in fact goes against the spirit of the photograph. The courts will indeed frown on this.

You cannot use any photograph you wish for any purpose and call it fair use.

[AmandaBC]

Have you ever wondered why Faux News isn't suing John Stewart over their footage on his show? Or why Bill O'Reilly isn't suing MSNBC for showing his picture under the label "worst man in the world"?

It's the reason why this lawsuit will be dismissed in a New York minute...

[AmandaBC]

****FAIR USE****

Stuff it, right-wing paparazzo. Your lawsuit is going nowhere.

[fairfax8]

It's a photojouranilst's lawsuit for one, and why you support someone for using somebody else's work in a blatant attempt to mislead is puzzling.

[AmandaBC]

Once again, read the law. Too bad right-wingers like you believe free speech only applies to the people you like...

[rasit]

May be you want to check out thye LEGAL definition of Fair Use in the Copyright Law; commercial use of another person's work without his/her permission or license is NOT Fair use....

[AmandaBC]

How's Michael Moore's use of that imagine COMMERCIAL?
It's very much **EDITORIAL.** Look it up, if you don't know what it means.