sometimes ignored is a good policy....for lawsuit....
名人不經意的於其社群帳號上傳一張 非其所攝而係由他人所攝之照片而引起訟爭，原因不外乎名人的名氣，也就是錢；這些橫禍讓名人不堪其擾，要如何解決這類糾紛，實務尚在發展中，我們可靜觀其變。
Gigi Hadid被訴侵害著作權已非第一次；本人不覺得納悶，既然已有前案，Hadid為何還要在網路上攫取照片；拿手機自拍上傳到自己的IG便可，捨此不為，屢屢遭訴；諸不論狗仔隊所設之照片有無著作權，Hadid的行止頗為怪異。
Photographer Only Granted $3K Because Gigi Hadid Ignored His Copyright Lawsuit
攝影師只獲賠3000美元，因為Gigi Hadid對本件侵害著作權訴訟不予理會。
Supermodel Gigi Hadid was ordered to pay $3,000 in damages after she failed to respond to a photographer’s copyright lawsuit.
Last year, photographer Ulices Ramales sued Hadid for posting a 2020 image of her sister Bella Hadid on Instagram Stories.
However, according to a report by Copyright Lately, Hadid didn’t attempt to settle or litigate.
超模Gigi Hadid在未出庭應訴後被判須給付3000美元之損害賠償予原告。去年，攝影師Ulicies Ramales起訴主張Hadid 在IG 限時動態po出一張2020年她與其姊姊Bella Hadid的合照侵害了其著作權。根據最新報導，Hadid未嘗試和解或爭訟。
In fact, the supermodel didn’t even bother to hire a lawyer over the photographer’s suit.
實際上，超模Hadid甚至未委任律師處理本件訴訟。
Instead, Hadid chose not to respond to Ramales’ complaint altogether which led to a default judgment. The publication reports that as a result of her lack of response, Hadid effectively defaulted in Ramales’ copyright lawsuit, leading to a judgment of only $3,000 in damages. The court awarded the photographer the small settlement — a small portion of the $30,000 he had originally sought — along with $1,140 for attorney’s fees and $440 to cover costs.
取而代之，Hadid選擇乾脆不回應Ramales的訴訟，因此造成一造辯論判決。平面媒體指出由於缺乏Gigi的應訴，其未出庭造成法院判決3000美元之損害賠償。'
According to Copyright Lately, it appears that Hadid may have “got off easy” as a result of her actions – or lack thereof.輕鬆脫免
The publication points out that Modern Family actress Sofia Vergara seemed to adopt a similar strategy in 2021 when she allowed a copyright lawsuit over an Instagram post to pass without response — ultimately leading to a judgment of just $750 with no additional fees awarded.
This is not the first time Hadid has been involved in a copyright lawsuit with a photographer and took an unusual approach. In 2019, Hadid was sued by a photographer for posting a copyrighted image of herself on Instagram. However, she argued that it was “fair use” because she had contributed to the photo by smiling in it.
這並非Hadid第一次被攝影師提告侵害著作權。2019年Hadid因在其IG上傳照片被攝影師提起訴訟。然而，Hadid辯稱其在照片中微笑對照片有貢獻應以合理使用視之而免責。
The supermodel’s lawyers argued that she had the right to the photograph as a “joint author.” As Hadid had cooperated with the photographer and posed for the picture, she therefore established herself as a co-creator. While courts generally reject this argument — as did the  judge  who ruled over Hadid’s case — the supermodel’s lawsuit later got dismissed for other reasons.
Gigi的律師答辯稱：她因係照片之共同著作人而擁有著作權。當Hadid與攝影師合作並於拍攝時擺出拍照姿勢，當下她即是該攝影著作之共同創作人。然而法院不採此答辯；本案之法官亦採取同樣見解，超模之訴訟因其她理由遭法院駁回。

U.S. copyright law is quite straightforward when it comes to intellectual property and clearly states that the person who “authored” a work is the copyright owner, such as a photographer who takes a picture of a celebrity. But despite this crystal-clear definition of intellectual property in the eyes of the law, some celebrities still refuse to license images for their social media and adamantly believe they should own the photos taken of them, not the photographers.
當談到智慧財產時，美國著作權法很直白地規定誰創作著作即是著作權人，例如誰對名人拍照，拍照者即是著作人。但盡管此如晶瑩剔透般的法律見解，一些名人仍不去取得授權，而固執地認他們入鏡的照片即有著作權，非攝影者。