AstorybyThomas Hawk , a rather popular picture blogger , is work its daily round right now . Apparently the man is being sued for $ 2 million over some photos he took in a museum and posted on Flickr . What ’s going on ?
According to Hawk — who is no stranger when it comes to beingtossed out of museumsorbeing provoke for take pic — the World Erotic Art Museum is basically unconnected about what measure up as professional and commercial photography :
The World Erotic Art Museum in Miami is trying to sue me for a minimum of $ 2 million for post photograph that I took in their Museum on Flickr .
[ In their ] complaint they charge me of violating their policy stated at their entrance saying that the museum prohibits professional or flash picture taking .
I picture no sign when I chitchat the museum .
However , I train no flash photographs in the museum , and Flickr ( where I posted the images ) is purely defined as a non - commercial photosharing site . I have not sold any images of that I remove at the museum and I have not profited one cent on any the ikon that I posted on Flickr . What ’s more the complaint enjoin “ at no clip did Plaintiff or Plaintiff ’s agents give express or implied permission or authorization to Defendant to take the photographs . ” This is a bald faced Trygve Lie . One of the employees at the museum in fact approached both me , and my supporter Mo , who were taking photos to let the cat out of the bag to us about them . He specifically asked me if I was making a book and I say no . He enunciate okay and we continue photographing in the museum at the time .
Further Flickr explicitly describes itself as a non - commercial-grade site . This is not professional photography .
[ … ]
Further the museum filed a DMCA petition fraudulently and had Flickr remove many image that they do not in fact own copyright to .
The World Erotic Art Museum ’s owner and conservator Naomi Wilzig had a slightly different prospect on the entire good deal though . When I inquire her to explain why the museum was pursuing legal action against Hawk , she plainly stated “ Simple : He dwell . ”
While WEAM allows media and photographers to record the premise and take photographs , it ’s with the mute and unwritten sympathy that no one would ever carry anything explicit — peculiarly not visuals involve incursion — online . By posting 334 photos — which Wilzig arrogate the museum was not aware he get hold of — Hawk failed to respect this understanding and gave WEAM no option : They had to do what “ no one else had the money or backbone to do . ”
Wilzig explained that she finger that by posting his photo on Flickr , Hawk put WEAM at risk of “ exposing [ its ] art employment to young hoi polloi ” and made it seem as if he somehow correspond the museum . This intend that WEAM had to stop what Wilzig describes as an “ unsavory character ” and the mode to do it was to make an impression .
So the museum , on its lawyer ’s advice , threatened Hawk with a $ 2 million causa .
According to Wilzig , this was not done in an aim to make a profit off the situation , but because it was important to lease Hawk know that WEAM was serious about pursuing the matter . Wilzig says that there is currently negotiation between WEAM ’s sound agency and Hawk — who was unable to gloss on this whole affair as he was busy seek legal advice — regarding how to settle the whole pickle .
When I ask Wilzig what the museum was hoping to get out of the berth — and how it could be dissolve — she replied that all that was really needed is for Hawk to give a public excuse and — she hastily added on — for WEAM ’s legal fees to be deal .
sound like this very public game of he - said - she - said is just one big mistaking and could possibly get to a peaceful ending . But who hump ? After all , the party involve seem to scarce tally on what the matter even is .
Photo viaThomas Hawk
lensman
Daily Newsletter
Get the best technical school , science , and culture news in your inbox daily .
News from the future , deliver to your nowadays .
You May Also Like
