Quincy Jones is being sued for using a photo of Himself
February 20, 2012 
Quincy Jones is being sued by a photographer, who claims to have taken the photo of Quincy, which is now being used without his permission. The photo in question, was taken was used to help promote a line of headphones by AKG, showing Quincy in the studio, nearly 17 years ago, in 1995. So far, it’s a pretty standard, ‘Hey, you took my photo, give me money’ situation, but it starts to get interesting.
Many people who aren’t familiar with copyright law will be wondering why Quincy can’t use a photo of himself, but it’s no surprise to me that this law suite has arisen. You can’t just take someone else’s photo, just because you happen to be the subject in it.
The photographer in question is a man named Michael Jones (no relation), and it was taken when he was asked to photograph a group of recording sessions at Qwest Records in Hollywood, by Qwest’s president at the time. He also says that there was no contract or release involved, which stated that his photographs from those sessions were works made for hire, and could have been used by Quincy Jones.
Now, it’s not normal for there to be no contracts in place, so why weren’t there? Well, it seems that the photographer wasn’t paid for the last two sessions, because the studio changed their mind, and decided that they wanted him to relinquish his rights (and negatives), before he would be paid. They never came to a resolution, so no release was ever signed, and he never got paid for the final two sessions.
Then a couple years ago, the photo in question popped up, and the photographer was offered $5,000 to transfer the copyright over, so that it could be used by a ‘small’ company to market some headphones. Now, you may not be aware of AKG, but I can assure you, they are by no means a small company. The photographer wanted more money than that, and according to him, they never came to an agreement, and no contract was signed, even after he was sent a cheque, which was not cashed.
And this is where it starts to get interesting. Not only was the photo used to promote the product, but it was used extensively, even with a free download of the photo being made available, which is probably taking it a little bit too far if you’re a photographer. So to summarise, there appears to be no contract in place which allows Quincy to use the photo, even after numerous attempts were made to come to an agreement, and the photo is now being used just about everywhere. It seems unusual to me that the photographer would turn down the final offer of $6,500 for a photo he took 15 years earlier, but that is what he’s claiming.
If you thought was weird, here’s where it starts to get a bit out of hand. Michael Jones is suing for damages (understandable), for no less than $50 million (slightly less understandable). Basically, he’s suing them for everything he possibly can, which includes using the photo, altering the photo, and to recover profits made from the photo. It’s early days, and there doesn’t seem to be a response from Quincy and Co just yet, but it sounds like a lot of money to me.
If what Michael Jones is saying is true, then what do you think should happen? Clearly there was a dispute over the ownership of the photo, and AKG knew this, but used it anyway, but $50 million? For a photo? I think he would have had a very good chance of winning the suit, if it was for less money, but right now, he seems to be in a very good place to settle.
It’s unclear whether Jones has signed a model release or not, and I suspect not, but that argument (which I’ve seen popping up across the internet) is rather irrelevant. If the photographer wanted to use his photo for commercial reasons, then he would have needed a signed model release, but it was actually Quincy himself using the photo, albeit without permission. No model release would have prevented the photographer from using it commercially, and would have stopped him from making money, but that doesn’t mean that someone else should be able to make money from it, just because he couldn’t.
It seems to me that they both could have done each other a service here and come to an arrangement where they were both happy (Michael only wanted $10,000 for the rights). Is this just another case of sue-happy America? What are your thoughts on this whole situation? Comments below.
I would side with the photographer in this case. Although he is clearly asking for more than what could ever be made on the photo, he should receive a substantial sum. It is in the judge’s hands to decide exactly how much that should be.
The problem I see is, that if the photographer wont win the case, other companys may act like AKG did. It could be that they think “We’ll let’s give it a try and just take these photos, maybe the photographer thinks we’re to big and won’t do anything an even if he does he won’t win as seen in the akg-case”.
No doubt: $50 million is way too much. But i think $1 Mil. would be understandable so that other comapanys are warned off to act the same way.
I’m not sure I agree with that entirely. I think it’s going to be a massive pain in the side for whoever is getting sued, as well as big legal costs. I think that anyone who was planning on doing this, is probably thinking that it may be a good Idea to just go and retake the photo themselves. 1 Million is probably fair though, because if everything Michael says is true, then they really have crossed a line.
Michael may have shot himself in the foot pursuing this matter. He may lose a lot of high-paying photo jobs because of this.
If he wins a substantial award it probably won’t make much difference to him, but if he loses, not only will he have lost customers but now has to figure out how to pay his lawyer$.
This case is going to make a lot of money for the lawyer$.
If Quincy Jones wrote a song about the photographer, he’d probably be pretty angry if the photographer used it as the theme song for a commercial product, without permission.
Very well put.
Good on him for suing them because that isn’t on, especially for a big company using the photo to front an advertising campaign. Although, I have to say, 50 million is beyond ridiculous. Surely there is no way to link the profits made to the use of the photo so I think asking that much is just a bit greedy.
The question I have is simple … Why the hell did the photog start the shoot without a contract or release signed? It sounds like he put a lot of effort (multiple shoots) into the project only to have the studio “decide to cancel the project” whatever that means (actually it means “You have already given us enough product without a contract, so we’ll fire you now and use what we have”).
Oh. And yes the photog should sue.