A photographer has won $1.2 million in damages in a copyright infringement lawsuit stemming from the theft of images from Twitter. Daniel Morel obtained the judgement after he sued Getty Images and Agence France-Presse for copyright infringement. AFP filed the lawsuit in 2010, which sought a declaratory judgment that the agency had not infringed upon Mr. Morel’s copyright rights. Mr. Morel then filed his own counterclaims for images that he took of the 2010 earthquake in his native Haiti that were purportedly taken from Twitter and used commercially by the agencies.
The agencies argued that the Twitter terms of use agreement supported their use. The Court, however, found that the Twitter terms of use agreement allowed for retweeting, but not commercial use of the photographs. After the Court found the two agencies liable in January, Mr. Morel obtained $1.2 million for copyright infringement in a trial on damages.
The AFP v. Morel case, decided in the Southern District of New York, is one of the most important early precedents on the intersection of social media terms of service and copyright law. The core issue — whether a platform’s terms of use grant third parties a license to use content commercially — was answered clearly: they do not.
Twitter’s terms of service granted a license to retweet and share content within the platform. They did not grant wire services, photo agencies, or news outlets the right to download photographs, remove the photographer’s attribution, and sell them to third parties. The agencies’ argument conflated the social function of Twitter (sharing) with a commercial license to exploit copyrighted works. The court rejected that argument.
Photographs are protected by copyright from the moment of creation. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5) lists “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” as copyrightable subject matter. No registration is required for the copyright to exist, but registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is required before the copyright owner can file an infringement lawsuit in federal court.
Critically, pre-infringement registration (or registration within three months of first publication) entitles the copyright owner to statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), which range from $750 to $30,000 per work for non-willful infringement and up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement. In AFP v. Morel, the jury found both defendants liable for willful infringement, and the $1.2 million award reflected statutory damages across multiple photographs — a concrete demonstration of the leverage that timely registration provides.
The Morel case is a warning to media organizations, marketing agencies, and anyone who downloads and repurposes images found on social media. Posting a photograph to Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook does not grant the public — or commercial entities — any right to use that photograph beyond the specific permissions granted by the platform’s terms of service. Those permissions are typically limited to within-platform sharing and do not extend to commercial reproduction, publication, or sale.
Downstream uses — embedding photographs in articles, printing them in publications, or licensing them to third parties — require authorization from the copyright owner. The fact that a photograph is publicly accessible online does not constitute implied authorization for these uses.
If you discover that your photographs have been used without authorization — whether by a wire service, a media company, or a social media account — your first step should be to document the infringement with screenshots and preserve evidence of the original creation date of your work. Do not contact the infringer directly before consulting with a copyright attorney. Your response to the infringement may affect the strength of your legal position.
Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys regularly represent photographers in copyright infringement disputes, including cases involving social media, online news outlets, and photo licensing agencies. We understand the photography copyright market and the strategic considerations that determine whether a case should be resolved through a licensing agreement, a demand letter, or litigation.
If you have questions about copyright law, copyright registration, or copyright infringement, contact the copyright attorneys at Revision Legal. Call us at 855-473-8474 or complete our contact form for a consultation.
The AFP v. Morel case has had lasting influence on how media organizations, news agencies, and commercial image licensors approach social media. Following the $1.2 million judgment, wire services and news organizations implemented more rigorous protocols for verifying that images sourced from social media have been properly licensed from the rights holder before commercial distribution. Many agencies now require explicit written permission from the photographer before distributing images originally posted to social media, regardless of the platform’s terms of service.
For photographers, the case confirmed that posting images to social media does not forfeit copyright rights. Photographers who register their photographs before commercial publication preserve the ability to seek substantial statutory damages if those photographs are infringed. For photographers whose work has significant commercial value — photojournalists documenting breaking news events, fashion photographers, advertising photographers — timely registration is an essential business practice, not an optional formality.
If you are a photographer who has discovered that your images have been used commercially without your authorization — whether by a news agency, a marketing firm, a website, or an individual — our copyright attorneys can evaluate your claim and advise on the most effective enforcement strategy. We represent photographers in licensing disputes, DMCA enforcement proceedings, and federal copyright infringement litigation.
Contact the copyright attorneys at Revision Legal with questions about copyright law or infringement. Call 855-473-8474 or complete our contact form.
Mercedes-Benz was sued for featuring street art in a photo shoot without permission under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act. Here’s what the case decided.
Read more about Street Art, Architectural Copyright, and Mercedes
eSports tournaments and streaming raise complex copyright questions around game footage, broadcasts, and player likenesses. Here’s how copyright law applies in competitive gaming.
Read more about Copyright Infringement and eSports
VR developers face uncharted copyright territory around virtual environments, user-generated content, and real-world replications. Here’s how existing copyright law applies to VR.
Read more about Virtual Reality and Copyright Law for Developers