GIGI HADID FACES HER THIRD COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT AND HER INSTAGRAM IS TO BLAME (AGAIN)...
This past week, Gigi Hadid has found herself at the receiving end of her third copyright suit... and once again it’s her Instagram posts that are to blame.
New York-based photographer Robert O’Neil has raised an action against Hadid - real name Jelena Noura - for the “reproduction and public display of a copyrighted photograph” of her then-boyfriend (and apparent “muze”) Zayn Malik. O'Neil's issue? That she did so without being “licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the photograph” and without “permission or consent” to publish it to her Instagram Story.
The photo itself is subject to protection as a copyrighted image, registered with the US Copyright Office (Registration Number: VA 2-121-470). As the photographer, Mr O'Neil owns exclusive rights under copyright - which Ms Hadid is given no regard to - and he is therefore seeking to claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 or, alternatively, “actual” damages as well as recovering “any profits, gains or advantages” the model has made which are “attributable to [her] infringement”. Cost, expenses, and fees are also sought.
This is not the first time the supermodel - who has worked with brands such as Marc Jacobs, Valentino, Fendi, and Tommy Hilfiger - has been sued for sharing images to her Instagram profiles. In 2017, an image taken by photographer Peter Cepeda was shared without his permission; a lawsuit was filed in the following September but was ultimately settled out of court. Then, in January of this year, Hadid found herself receiving her 2nd suit after photography agency Xclusive-Lee Inc. filed a complaint relating to her sharing a photographer's image, which she later deleted, without license or authorisation, whilst also producing at least 50 examples where Ms. Hadid had shared uncredited photographs of herself. This case led to the now-infamous argument that Hadid ought to be considered a co-author of the image (because she contributed “creative elements” such as smiling and selecting her outfit) which, unfortunately, did not get to play out before the court as the case was dismissed as Xcluive-Lee Inc.’s copyright registration had not been approved prior to the complaint being filed.
Given that Ms. Hadid can not attempt to revive her co-authorship claim in this instance (unless she attempts to lay claim to dressing, styling and instructing Zayn, which would be quite ridiculous), it will be interesting to see how her legal team chose to respond. This case, and others of its kind, brings with it the larger debate around publicity rights and a celebrity's right to control their image - should this extend to limiting the profitability of the paparazzi and the images they produce? And in a society with an insatiable desire for celebrity “news” and gossip what effect should the First Amendment’s caveat that consent is not required when the use of someone’s personality is for a “newsworthy” purpose? Needless to say, we hope Gigi’s team are as creative as they have been in the past, and can’t wait to see what defence they (hopefully) roll out ...
Written by FLB contributor Stephanie Kelly