Tag Archives: copyright infringement

DMCA Takedown Notices Require Fair Use Considerations

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Case Nos. 13-16106 and 13-16107, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

 by Nancy Wolff and Josh Wolkoff, Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard, LLP

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was enacted in 1998 to address in part issues created by the internet and the widespread posting of content by users. In reforming the Copyright Act in 1978, the drafters thought that this Act would serve well into the future as it was content neutral but they could not foresee the way the Internet dramatically altered the way users exchanged content online and how perfect copies of copyrighted content could be virally distributed in seconds. Internet service providers (ISPs) were concerned with strict liability and monetary damages based on content posted by users and hosted on their servers over which they could not monitor and control. Section 512 of the Copyright Act was enacted to balance the concerns of ISPs and copyright owners. Qualified ISP were granted immunity from liability if they received a proper notice of infringement and expeditiously removed the infringing content.

There has been much litigation over the years regarding various aspects of the DMCA, including whether a copyright owner is required to consider whether the use made of the uploaded content is considered a fair use and not an infringement before issuing a takedown notice. Because of the massive amount of content uploaded by users, and the difficulty to search the ever increasing number of sites, content owners, including the music industry, employ technology to crawl the internet to find unlicensed content in order to end the ISP the requisite takedown notice.

A test case was brought in 2007 by Stephanie Lenz, a mother who sued Universal Music Group after YouTube removed a 29-second video of her toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” in response to a DMCA takedown notice submitted by Universal Music Group, Prince’s music publisher. Not surprisingly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a pro user group supported Lenz in bringing this test case. Dubbed the “dancing baby case,” Lenz argued that her video was protected by the doctrine of fair use and that Universal’s takedown notice violated a section of the DMCA that provides liability for knowingly making material representations because it misrepresented that the video was infringing without considering fair use . Under the DMCA, a proper takedown notice must include a statement that the owner or its agent has a “good faith belief” that the use of the copyrighted work is not authorized under the law.

The case ultimately made its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. An appeal the court was asked to examine whether fair use was a right under copyright and an authorized use, or a defense to infringement and unauthorized. In a significant ruling to content owners and ISP’s, the court issued a bright line rule that copyright holders must consider the fair use doctrine before issuing takedown notices to remove otherwise infringing content under the DMCA. The Court’s decision makes clear that a failure to do so can open the door to nominal monetary damages and attorneys’ fees for any material misrepresentations made (or improper procedures used) in the course of pulling content from service providers like YouTube. The court explained that fair use must be treated differently than other affirmative defenses because fair use is not merely an exception to an infringement – it is one that that is expressly “authorized by law” under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.

The Ninth Circuit took great pains, however, to qualify the thrust of its ruling, suggesting that it was “mindful of the pressing crush of voluminous infringing content that copyright holders face in a digital age.” In particular, a sender must only form a “subjective good faith belief” that the use is not a fair use or not authorized under the law. The inquiry “need not be searching or intensive” and, in fact, the Court recognized the role that computer algorithms and automated programs might play in making such fair use determinations and issuing proper takedown notices. The Ninth Circuit also confirmed that the question of liability for material misrepresentations does not hinge on whether or not the use is indeed a fair use: courts are “in no position to dispute the copyright holder’s belief even if [the court] would have reached the opposite conclusion.”

As a result content owners should review their notice and takedown procedures in order to ensure that their procedures give due consideration to potential fair uses. DMLA, in watching this case over the years, revised the declaration in its DMCA notice to include reference to a fair use review: I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of herein is not authorized by COPYRIGHT HOLDER, its licensing representatives, or the law and is not a fair use.

Even if using recognition technology to find infringing uses, someone should review the use to determine if the use is a fair use or not. As fair use is determined on a case by case basis, and in not the easiest area of the law, the determination just needs to be made in good faith. As noted by the Ninth Circuit, it is not a material misrepresentation if a court might come out differently. Fair use is a judgment call after weighing the requisite four factors. DMLA has a webinar on fair use found [here] and the Copyright Office has published an index of fair use cases [http://copyright.gov/fair-use/]

*** You can find the DMCA takedown notice on the DMLA Document Library


by Nancy Wolff,  DMLA Counsel 

The Third Circuit, in Grant Heilman Photography, Inc. v. McGraw Educ. Holdings, LLC, 2015 WL 1279502 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2015), upheld the jury’s verdict that McGraw-Hill had not proven that Grant Heilman Photography, Inc. (“GHP”), was on notice as to McGraw-Hill’s unlicensed use of GHP’s photographs in its textbook publications prior to April 18, 2009. As such, GHP was not barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year-statute of limitation, 17 U.S.C. 507(b), from collecting damages for the overrun and unlicensed use of their images prior to April 18, 2009.


17 U.S.C. 507(b) states that a plaintiff cannot bring a civil copyright infringement claims, unless such claims are “commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” Circuits Courts, such as the Second (NY, CT and VT) and Third Circuit (NJ, PA and DE) has adopted the “discovery rule”, under which the three-year “countdown” does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered through due diligence, when the infringement took place.

On April 18, 2012, GHP brought a copyright infringement suit against McGraw-Hill citing 2,395 instances of McGraw Hill’s infringing use of GHP photographs between 1995-2011 (only a representative sample of 53 claims were presented to the jury). McGraw-Hill did not deny copyright infringement, but argued that GHP’s copyright infringement claims against McGraw-Hill for unlicensed use of their photographs prior to April 18, 2009—the purported accrual date of GHP’s claims—are barred under the Copyright Act’s three year statute of limitation.

In its review of the jury’s verdict for GHP, the court analyzed whether, as per the discovery rule, the evidence and testimony presented at trial showed that GHP “should have known the basis for [its] claims[, which] depends on whether [it] had sufficient information of possible wrongdoing to place [it] on inquiry notice or to excite storm warnings of culpable activity.” The court admitted that McGraw-Hill had a strong argument that an objectively reasonable copyright holder could recognize that McGraw-Hill’s numerous copyright infringements between1995-2009 were storm warnings “heralding possible greater infringement” by McGraw-Hill. However, in what it called “a very close question”, the court found that other evidence presented at trial indicated that the jury could have found verdict in favor of GHP. Mainly, there was evidence that:

  1. McGraw-Hill itself was unaware of the extent of its license infringements until 2013, so that a jury could find that GHP could not be on inquiry notice before April 18, 2009;
  2. McGraw-Hill’s records were not well organized, so that a jury could find that GHP would not have received concrete information even if it had inquired;
  3. There was an impliedly accepted “course of dealing” between McGraw-Hill and GHP, where McGraw-Hill would use GHP’s photographs without permission, and subsequently invoice GHP for the use;
  4. When GHP became aware of specific license infringements, it worked with McGraw-Hill towards resolving the issue, so that a jury could find that GHP (i) did not sit on its rights, and (ii) viewed past infringements by McGraw-Hill as officially resolved, and not as “storm warnings of future instability”;
  5. McGraw-Hill’s print run of its book was confidential, so that a jury could find the GHP, dependent on such information to determine whether McGraw-Hill had overrun its licenses, could not have been on inquiry notice.


This case is a reminder that the industry’s procedures and course of dealings are relevant and that practices once prevalent before electronic licensing may need to be updated by publishers and licensors to ensure accurate licensing. A few years back the then PACA Editorial Relations Committee made great efforts to work with educational publishers on contracts ad practices that would protect the interests for both licensors and publishers in the digital era. Cengage was the most responsive and worked with the association in crafting language and licensing structures that took account the needs of both parties. DMLA remains open to further collaborations with other publishers. Hopefully this decision will reduce the litigation in this area and lead to reasonable resolutions as both publishers and image libraries need to work together to ensure that educational books contain images necessary to illustrate the history, culture and information reflective of our times.

Original article on original jury trial can be found here

Lived In Images Awarded Damages For Copyright Infringement Claims Against Content Farm

cleararts long logo



Los Angeles, California: Clear Arts – ImageProtect (www.imageprotect.com) an image tracking company, today announces that it has successfully negotiated a six figure settlement for damages of copyright infringement for Lived In Images, Inc., a stock photo archive specializing in home, garden, and interior design pictures against Buzzle.com, an online content farm.

“Clear Arts continues to grow successful outcomes from our operations and in the process has become more effective at monetizing revenues for our clients,” said Jonathan Thomas, CEO of Clear Arts. “We are undergoing rapid expansion in the market. Everyday our software tracks and gathers evidence of unauthorized use of copyrights and our legal teams in North America, Europe, and Russia close cases in our client’s favor. We have made great strides in combating the multi-billion dollar dilemma of copyright infringement.”

Visual content — photography, video, art, illustration, and multi-media — is intellectual property. It is owned and has tangible value. That value erodes when theft cannot be easily and cost-effectively deterred. When someone infringes a copyright, the copyright holder effectively is deprived of income (either directly or indirectly) that could be used to develop new or better content. Every year the content industries lose billions of dollars to copyright infringement, depriving the public of new creative works, costing industry jobs and hurting economic growth. The challenge for copyright owners is that the legal framework now in place requires the copyright owner, in order to protect its rights, to monitor and notice “each” individual act of infringement and document it. Clear Arts has automated this arduous process.

About Clear Arts: Clear Arts, Inc. (www.cleararts.com) is a technology company that builds tools to allow images to be easily tracked and monetized across the Web. Our proprietary and scalable image recognition software can determine where and by whom an image is being used online. We automate the tracking of copyright images, advertisements, and brands to enable measurement and monetization. Contact us at info@cleararts.com

Copyright Action Against Cafepress Permitted To Proceed Based On Merchandise Created From User Generated Content

by Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel

Photographer Steven Gardner was not pleased to find that four of his copyrighted images – “Alaska Wildlife,” “Polar Bears 10 Hidden Bears,” “Find 12 Tigers,” and “Harmony of Wolves” – were being printed and sold on merchandise by CafePress Inc., the company behind www.cafepress.com, without his permission. Gardner filed a copyright action against CafePress alleging that CafePress directly infringed his four images. No complaint was filed against the users that uploaded his images.

See entire article here

Copyright Action Against Cafepress Permitted To Proceed Based On Merchandise Created From User Generated Content

by Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel

Steven Gardner was not pleased to find that four of his copyrighted images – “Alaska Wildlife,” “Polar Bears 10 Hidden Bears,” “Find 12 Tigers,” and “Harmony of Wolves” – were being printed and sold on merchandise by CafePress Inc., the company behind www.cafepress.com, without his permission. Gardner filed a copyright action against CafePress alleging that CafePress directly infringed his four images.

CafePress allows users to upload images to its site, select from its menu of novelty items, including t-shirts and mugs, and CafePress handles the everything else, including printing the image on the merchandise and shipping. Users can also make their images available for third parties to purchase via various online marketplaces including CafePress’s own website, Amazon, and eBay.

In Gardner’s case, several CafePress users uploaded his images onto CafePress’s website and sold merchandise bearing images images through CafePress’s platform and other websites, generating approximately $6,000 in revenue. CafePress also ran advertisements featuring Gardner’s images.

CafePress moved for summary judgment, asking the court to find that there is no basis for a claim of direct copyright infringement, asserting that the Copyright Act requires some volitional conduct in order to find liability.

Generally, a party bringing a claim for copyright infringement must establish the following elements in order to succeed in a claim for direct copyright infringement: (1) ownership of the allegedly infringed material, (2) violation of at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders, and (3) volitional conduct by the defendant. Here, the first two elements, ownership of the copyright and violation of at least one exclusive right were undisputed. Only this third element – volitional conduct by the defendant – was disputed.

CafePress argued that it did not act with the requisite volition because, just like cases involving satellite and cable television providers, it is the individual CafePress users – the ones who uploaded the images and offered the items bearing the images available for sale – who are directly liable for infringement, not CafePress. CafePress also attempted to rely on the immunities afforded to online service providers with respect to user-generated content under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). On the other hand, Gardner argued that CafePress is akin to the copy shops that courts have held directly liable for the conduct of its customers in copying course packs and the like.

In this instance, Gardner’s case was allowed to proceed past summary judgment because the court found that there were questions of fact as to whether CafePress’s conduct was sufficient to find liability. The Court’s decision was influenced by the fact that CafePress’s service is not completely automated and a significant portion of the alleged infringing acts was done by CafePress employees. In line with Gardner’s argument, the Court highlighted that, like the copy shop, “CafePress’s employees, not its customers, are the ones operating the machinery used by CafePress to create the allegedly infringing items.” While CafePress may act at the direction of its users initially, CafePress is the one actually making the merchandise.

In denying CafePress’s motion for summary judgment on the direct copyright infringement claim, the court kept alive the question of CafePress’s direct liability for another day. Notably, this decision also hints at the court’s willingness to chip away at protections afforded online service providers under the DMCA when the provider creates physical goods from user-generated content. This qualified immunity from monetary damages under the DMCA may be lost depending on the level of activity and involvement an online provider has in creating products with user generated content.


In two recent jury trials, both Grant Heilman Photography Inc. (Grant Heilman) and Panoramic Images were awarded copyright damages against textbook publishers resulting from the publication of images outside of the scope of the license terms.

Grant Heilman brought a copyright infringement action in Federal Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the McGraw-Hill Companies. This trial was a bellwether trial, meaning that the trial was limited to a representative sample of the many images that were alleged to be used outside the scope of the license, to give the parties a feel of how a jury would decide the issues on the other images. The jury was asked to determine a number of issues and all were answered in Grant Heilman’s favor. One issued involved the validity of Grant Heilman’s copyright registrations in some of the images that were being contested by the publisher. The jury did not agree that the publisher had presented evidence that the copyright registrations were invalid, upholding Grant Heilman’s registration practices.

In this sample infringement case, the copyright registrations were not filed before the infringing use, consequently Grant Heilman was limited to seeking actual damages, including profits and could not elect statutory damages. Nonetheless Grant Heilman was awarded a total of $127, 087, which included profits and actual damages.

Importantly, the jury rejected the publisher’s theory that Grant Heilman should have known about “storm warnings” (general knowledge of excessive use of images by textbook publishers) or should have been on notice that the publisher was not complying with its license agreements prior to 2009. This is significant because if the publisher was successful in claiming that Graham Heilman should’ve known of “storm warnings”, then the statute of limitations may have reduced the number of years that damages could be awarded. Because the jury found in Grant Heilman’s favor, it was not precluded from bringing claims for infringements prior to April 18, 2009. Presumably, the parties will either have a trial or settle the remaining claims that were not tried in this bellwether trial.

Panoramic Images brought a similar action against John Wiley & Sons, Inc. in Federal District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. This trial involved damages for six images in excessive of license terms. As in the Grant Heilman case, there was an issue as to whether Panoramic should have known that the publisher was not complying with its license agreements before it filed its claim, which would have limited the amount of years Panoramic could recover damages. The jury did not find that Panoramic should have known that its licenses were not complied with and did not cut off damages before December 17, 2009. In this instance, 5 of the 6 pictures were registered before the infringement, permitting the jury to award statutory damages.

The jury found that Wiley’s infringement of the 5 photographs was willful and for 4 of the images the jury awarded damages of $62,500 each, for a total of $250,000.

For one cover image, the excess use was substantial, and the jury awarded the maximum statutory damages of $150,000. For another individual image that Panoramic Images had not registere3d before the use, the jury awarded actual damages of $500 and profits of $3000. In total the jury award for all six images was $403,500.

Both Grant Heilman and Panoramic Images were represented by the firm of Harmon & Seidman.


by Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel  

Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 14CV7114 DLC, 2014 WL 5285697 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2014)

In late August Microsoft launched a test version of a new service called Bing Image Widget which allows website publishers to embed a panel on their website that displays images supplied by Microsoft’s Bing Image Search that would enhance the user’s website experience.  The Bing Image Widget search prompted an automatic tool that “crawled” the Internet for any content that Microsoft could find, whether the crawled site had permission to use the images. The images were displayed in collage mode comprised of small, thumbnail-sized images or slideshow mode displaying full-sized images that rotated every few seconds. The thumbnail images were copied and indexed and then stored in a Thumbnail Library on Microsoft’s servers including code that displayed the full-sized images by an in-line link to an originating website’s server.

As mentioned n a prior post, http://blog.pacaoffice.org/?p=2242, many PACA members, as well as other associations (Specifically ASMP and CEPIC) were concerned that this widget could be used to replace legitimate licensing and contacted Microsoft to discuss the widget and industry concerns. Prior to any response  to the Associations from  Microsoft, Getty Images, who had earlier this year released an embed tool to promote “responsible image sharing”   http://infocus.gettyimages.com/post/new-embed-lets-you-share-tens-of-millions-of-images#.VFfluTTF8YZ]  filed a motion seeking preliminary injunction against Microsoft. A motion for preliminary injunction seeks to compel the allegedly infringing party to immediately cease use, and is granted where a party faces “irreparable harm” by the continued use. That same day, Microsoft immediately disabled the Widget and a few days later communicated to Getty Images that Microsoft was willing to “commit to not re-launching the Widget during the pendency of the lawsuit except as redesigned to display public domain or licensed images.” [Although, it wasn’t until almost two weeks later that Microsoft disabled the Widget for those that were still able to use the code generated prior to Microsoft’s disabling of the Widget.]

Due to Microsoft’s “prompt disabling” of the Widget and their assurances that it will not re-launch the service until the pending copyright infringement action is decided, the Southern District of New York denied Getty’s motion seeking preliminary injunction against Microsoft. It is important to note that this decision does not mean that Getty Images’ copyright infringement action against Microsoft is dismissed. Rather, the Court held that Getty Images did not meet the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction because Microsoft had already discontinued use of the Widget on its own.

PACA/Digital Media Licensing and ASMP did eventually have a conversation with Microsoft where it stated that due to ongoing litigation, it could not discuss the case, but that the Bing widget was disabled and there was no intention of launching the current Bing Widget in the future.  We offered to be available to discuss image embedding and search and in particular anything that would not encourage licensing of images from the original source. We discussed the  industry’s effort to increase image information through the PLUS registry and encouraged Microsoft to learn more about the PLUS coalition.

Stylized Derivative of Wisconsin Major Photo on T-Shirt Deemed Fair Use

by Nancy Wolff, PACA Counsel  

Michael Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC and Underground Printing-Wisconsin LLC, No. 13-3004 (7th Cir., September 15, 2014)

Michael Kienitz photographed the Wisconsin major, Paul Klogin, at his 2011 inauguration.  With Kienitz’s permission (but no fee), the major posted the portrait on the official city’s website.  An artist operating under Sconnie Nation LLC modified the photo and made t-shirts to be sold and worn at the 2012 Mifflin Street Block Party – an event that is designed to poke fun at authority.  The modified photo was colorized, posturized, and included multi colored type “Sorry For Partying.”   See the entire article here

Stylized Derivative of Wisconsin Major Photo on T-Shirt Deemed Fair Use

by Nancy Wolff, PACA Counsel  

Michael Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC and Underground Printing-Wisconsin LLC, No. 13-3004 (7th Cir., September 15, 2014)

Michael Kienitz photographed the Wisconsin major, Paul Klogin, at his 2011 inauguration.  With Kienitz’s permission (but no fee), the major posted the portrait on the official city’s website.  An artist operating under Sconnie Nation LLC modified the photo and made t-shirts to be sold and worn at the 2012 Mifflin Street Block Party – an event that is designed to poke fun at authority.  The modified photo was colorized, posturized, and included multi colored type “Sorry For Partying.”    Apparently Soglin attended the very first annual block party as a student at the University of Wisconsin in 1969, but tried to stop the event when he took office.  The t-shirts were not a commercial success, only 54 t-shirts were sold. The photo and the t-shirt art are compared below.








Kienitz, offended by the t-shirt design, brought a copyright infringement claim against Sconnie Nation and its distributor based on the derivative use of his image on the t-shirt. The court dismissed the action on a summary judgment motion, finding the use to be a fair use and not infringing. On appeal, the photographer did not fare any better as the 7th Circuit also found the use to be a fair use.

While the 7th Circuit analyzed fair use under the requisite four factor test proscribed in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, it took this opportunity to criticize the reasoning of the district court for relying on the Second Circuit’s approach in Cariou v. Prince, which focuses primarily on whether the’ use of the visual image is “transformative” in determining fair use. A work is considered transformative if it alters the original with new expression, meaning or message.  While the appellate court agreed that the modification of the photograph as depicted in the T-shirt was a fair use, it advocated for sticking to the factors identified in the statute rather than relying on a term that does not appear anywhere in the Copyright Act . The four the factors are (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This court focused more heavily on the fourth factor, and found that there was little to no effect of the use of the photograph on the market – the t-shirts were not a substitute for the original photograph, and Kienitz did not raise the possibility of licensing the photograph for apparel or any other use.  The third factor – the amount and substantiality of the use – was the only other fair use factor that had any “bite” in this case.  The court found that the only elements of the original photograph that remained after the modification was Soglin’s smile and the outline of his face, which cannot be copyrighted.  Turning to the two remaining statutory factors, the court acknowledged defendants’ small profits from the sales but stated that the design was political commentary.  Finally, in looking at the nature of the copyrighted work, the court stressed the absence of any argument that Sconnie Nation’s use reduced the value or demand of the original photograph.

The Court of Appeals noted that Sconnie Nation’s use of Kienitz’s photograph was not necessary in order to make the t-shirt and that Kienitz’s photography business may suffer in the long run – people may not want to hire Kienitz for fear the photos may be used against them, but these issues were not nearly enough to overcome the other fair use factors.

This case is most notable for its criticism of Cariou v. Prince.  In Cariou v. Prince, the Second Circuit expanded the meaning and importance of transformative use, holding that there is no requirement that a new work comment on or critically refer back to the original work or its author.  The court was explicitly “skeptical” of this approach, concerned that it may replace the list of factors and override protection of derivative works.



Agreement ends four years of litigation over the inclusion of visual works in Google Books 

NEW YORK, NY – September 5, 2014 – A group of photographers, visual artists and affiliated associations have reached a settlement with Google in a lawsuit over copyrighted material in Google Books. The parties are pleased to have reached a settlement that benefits everyone and includes funding for the PLUS Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping rightsholders and users communicate clearly and efficiently about rights in works.  Further terms of the agreement are confidential.


The agreement resolves a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Google in April, 2010, bringing to an end more than four years of litigation. It does not involve any admission of liability by Google. As the settlement is between the parties to the litigation, the court is not required to approve its terms.  This settlement does not affect Google’s current litigation with the Authors Guild or otherwise address the underlying questions in that suit.


The plaintiffs in the case are rightsholder associations and individual visual artists. The associational plaintiffs are The American Society of Media Photographers, Inc., Graphic Artists Guild, PACA (Digital Media Licensing Association)., North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, National Press Photographers Association, and American Photographic Artists. The individual plaintiffs are Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi, John Schmelzer, Simms Taback and Gail Kuenstler Taback Living Trust, Leland Bobbé, John Francis Ficara, and David W. Moser.


The case is American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 10-CV-02977 (DC) pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


About Google Inc. and Associational Parties


Google is a global technology leader focused on improving the ways people connect with information. Google’s innovations in web search and advertising have made its website a top Internet property and its brand one of the most recognized in the world.


Founded in 1944, The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) is the premier trade association for the world’s most respected photographers.


The Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) is a national union of graphic artists dedicated to promoting and protecting the social, economic and professional interests of its members and for all graphic artists including, animators, cartoonists, designers, illustrators, and digital artists.


PACA (Digital Media Licensing Association) is a trade association established in 1951 whose members include more than 80 companies representing the world of digital content licensing.


NANPA, the North American Nature Photography Association, is the first and premiere association in North America committed solely to serving the field of nature photography.


Professional Photographers of America (PPA) represents more than 17,000 photographers and photographic artists from dozens of specialty areas including portrait, wedding, commercial, advertising and art.


Founded in 1946 the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) is the “voice of visual journalists” promoting and defending the rights of photographers and journalists, including freedom of the press in all its forms.


The American Photographic Artists (APA) is a leading national organization run by and for professional photographers.


Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.