Music Legal: Jay-Z Sues Photographer Jonathan Mannion Over Likeness Use

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Jay-Z Sues Photographer Jonathan Mannion Over Likeness Use
By Charu Sinha@charulatasinha
Photo: PA Images via Getty Images
Jay-Z has filed a lawsuit against hip-hop photographer Jonathan Mannion, accusing Mannion of profiting off the rapper’s likeness without permission. The lawsuit alleges that Mannion, who shot the cover of Jay-Z’s debut album, Reasonable Doubt, “exploited” Jay-Z’s name and image “without [his] consent.” Further, the lawsuit claims that Mannion uses images of Jay-Z on his website in addition to selling prints of the rapper for thousands of dollars, without Jay-Z’s consent. “Jay-Z never gave Mannion permission to resell any of the images,” the lawsuit reads. “Nor did Jay-Z authorize Mannion to use his name, likeness, identity, or persona for any purpose.”
My Week In New York
A week-in-review newsletter from the people who make New York Magazine.

Jay-Z, according to the lawsuit, asked Mannion to stop selling photos of him, but Mannion refused, and “demanded that Jay-Z pay him tens of millions of dollars to put an end to Mannion’s use of Jay-Z’s likeness.” Jay-Z is now seeking an injunction against Mannion, requiring him to cease usage of Jay-Z’s name and image, as well as pay “compensatory damages.” The lawsuit also notes that it’s “ironic that a photographer would treat the image of a formerly unknown Black teenager, now wildly successful, as a piece of property to be squeezed for every dollar it can produce. It stops today.” (Mannion, however, was hired by Jay-Z in 1996, when Jay-Z was 26.)

Mannion’s legal representative said in a statement regarding the lawsuit, “Mr. Mannion has created iconic images of Mr. Carter over the years, and is proud that these images have helped to define the artist that Jay-Z is today. Mr. Mannion has the utmost respect for Mr. Carter and his body of work, and expects that Mr. Carter would similarly respect the rights of artists and creators who have helped him achieve the heights to which he has ascended. We are confident that the First Amendment protects Mr. Mannion’s right to sell fine art prints of his copyrighted works, and will review the complaint and respond in due course.”
 
Jay-Z Sues Photographer Jonathan Mannion Over Likeness Use
By Charu Sinha@charulatasinha
Photo: PA Images via Getty Images
Jay-Z has filed a lawsuit against hip-hop photographer Jonathan Mannion, accusing Mannion of profiting off the rapper’s likeness without permission. The lawsuit alleges that Mannion, who shot the cover of Jay-Z’s debut album, Reasonable Doubt, “exploited” Jay-Z’s name and image “without [his] consent.” Further, the lawsuit claims that Mannion uses images of Jay-Z on his website in addition to selling prints of the rapper for thousands of dollars, without Jay-Z’s consent. “Jay-Z never gave Mannion permission to resell any of the images,” the lawsuit reads. “Nor did Jay-Z authorize Mannion to use his name, likeness, identity, or persona for any purpose.”
My Week In New York
A week-in-review newsletter from the people who make New York Magazine.

Jay-Z, according to the lawsuit, asked Mannion to stop selling photos of him, but Mannion refused, and “demanded that Jay-Z pay him tens of millions of dollars to put an end to Mannion’s use of Jay-Z’s likeness.” Jay-Z is now seeking an injunction against Mannion, requiring him to cease usage of Jay-Z’s name and image, as well as pay “compensatory damages.” The lawsuit also notes that it’s “ironic that a photographer would treat the image of a formerly unknown Black teenager, now wildly successful, as a piece of property to be squeezed for every dollar it can produce. It stops today.” (Mannion, however, was hired by Jay-Z in 1996, when Jay-Z was 26.)

Mannion’s legal representative said in a statement regarding the lawsuit, “Mr. Mannion has created iconic images of Mr. Carter over the years, and is proud that these images have helped to define the artist that Jay-Z is today. Mr. Mannion has the utmost respect for Mr. Carter and his body of work, and expects that Mr. Carter would similarly respect the rights of artists and creators who have helped him achieve the heights to which he has ascended. We are confident that the First Amendment protects Mr. Mannion’s right to sell fine art prints of his copyrighted works, and will review the complaint and respond in due course.”

J is shit out of luck.... Mannion has copyright and...

iirc - the reasonable doubt album shoot was done for the free,

and the photo usage rights went like this:
in exchange for an unlimited license to use the pictures commercially Dame & J agreed to a release allowing Mannion to sell the photos...

instead of being upset about this:
il-1140x-N-2935840010-h5l4.jpg



J should be scrubbing the net of this image & video:

video-257230.jpg
 
crazy that if you pay a photographer to shoot you, they the photographer owns the copyright of the image and how you use the image unless its implicit full buy out.
 
This will be interesting, as a pro photographer some of the stuff that I'm reading in this thread are hilarious in terms of folks cheering Jay on & it's incorrect that photographers can do anything they want with their images..lol Unless Jay or the record company (which I know he was an owner of) paid to buy out the photographer & own the copyrights to the images the only leg he would have to stand on is if there were clauses in the contract which limited what the photographer could do with the images. Just about all contracts in these matters have model/subject releases. Terms & length of use can also be negotiated.
 
This will be interesting, as a pro photographer some of the stuff that I'm reading in this thread are hilarious in terms of folks cheering Jay on & it's incorrect that photographers can do anything they want with their images..lol Unless Jay or the record company (which I know he was an owner of) paid to buy out the photographer & own the copyrights to the images the only leg he would have to stand on is if there were clauses in the contract which limited what the photographer could do with the images. Just about all contracts in these matters have model/subject releases. Terms & length of use can also be negotiated.
Nobody knows what the contract between both parties stipulate nor its terms and conditions.

However, it’s safe to say that Hov’s multi billionaire dollar media machine saw a flaw in this situation and are deciding to exploit it. If they feel they have strong grounds to win it, their track record speaks for itself.

I don’t get why dude didn’t just let it go when he first asked. He would be alright without Jay in his catalog of artists he’s shot.
 
Nobody knows what the contract between both parties stipulate nor its terms and conditions.

However, it’s safe to say that Hov’s multi billionaire dollar media machine saw a flaw in this situation and are deciding to exploit it. If they feel they have strong grounds to win it, their track record speaks for itself.

I don’t get why dude didn’t just let it go when he first asked. He would be alright without Jay in his catalog of artists he’s shot.

There have been cases where companies or rich folks have filed suits basically because the could afford to out last the other party. I'm sure dude wouldn't have ignored him if he didn't have a leg to stand on. Shit I had to sue a company for using one of my images, the jackasses knew they were in the wrong & still tried to strong arm me. Just so happened that one of my clients is a huge K St patent law firm & they helped me out, once the company saw that I had that level of representation they cut the check & stopped using the image.

There are sites that photographers can use to see if their images are being used, folks would be surprised how often theft & copyright abuse takes place.
 
Back
Top