An image of the light show on Eiffel Tower at night.
An image showing the likeness of a celebrity
An image showing a le corbusier chair
An image showing a minor
An image showing a ward of court
An image showing one of those green fir tree air fresheners that hang in cars
An image of a red London bus crossing Waterloo bridge
An image of Mr or Mrs average
An image comprising of another's image
The answer is all of them.
Who here knows the Eiffel Tower lightshow is protected under copyright? Tourist photo? Fine...use same image to sell Paris to the tourists...not fine.
Eddie Ervine awarded £25k damages for use of his face in an advert
The chair is a registered design and there is a case in France right now...
Minors require parental consent forms signed
Green fir tree air fresheners are a trademarked design - case recently settled with Getty about their inclusion in advertising images
Plagiarism case settled on image likeness
Postcard scanned and shared online, used commercially for free only to cost four figures when photographer finds out
I could go on...but the point is, who knows this stuff in their day-to-day dealings? And don't think Instagram's terms and conditions will help - from what I have seen so far the liability is dumped back to you. To me, who has to know this kind of stuff, its akin to a fly looking for a windshield to slam into. Am I bothered? Not with respect to my own work (until someone posts it without my permission...) but it still makes me feel very uncomfortable.
This month I have grossed £5k from a single image. Shot on slide film, the image is technically poor and a bit soft focus - hardly my finest work - but the market has accepted the value I placed upon it and paid. So I can see the value of a mediocre image. And so can Instagram.I cant see the commercial value of a site that takes a mediocre photo...