New York-based O’Neil asserts that Hadid infringed his exclusive rights as the copyright holder of the photo “by reproducing and publicly displaying [it] on her Instagram story,” despite the fact that she “is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the photograph.” In doing so, O’Neil claims that the 24-year old supermodel ran afoul of his exclusive right to display the image, and distribute copies of it to the public by sale or another form of transfer, such as licensing, among other things. As a result, she should be forced to pay “statutory damages up to $150,000 per work infringed for [her] willful infringement of the photograph,” he argues. 位在紐約的O’Neil 主張哈蒂的行為侵害其為攝影著作之著作人專有重製及公開展示之著作財產權。事實是她未取得授權去重製、公開展示、散布或利用該照片。 O’Neil起訴主張這位24歲的超模，不管是藉由銷售或是另外諸如授權的方式去移轉，侵害其公開展示及散布之排他權。因此，她須就其惡意侵害之每一張照片給付最高至15萬元之法定賠償金。
CELEBRITY LICENSING 名人授權 In the licensing business, celebrity licensing refers to granting the right to a third party to use the name, image, brand, or likeness of a celebrity. By acquiring these rights under license, the third party can utilize them in the promotion or sale of their goods or services. 於授權實務，名人之授權指，授權第三人得利用其姓名、圖像、品牌或樣貌。藉由授權，第三人可於促銷或銷售其產品或服務下，利用上開標的。 A celebrity who licenses intellectual property (IP) related to their image, name, or likeness is allowing a third party (usually a group or business) to use those assets for the benefit of the third party’s business interests. In exchange for granting the licensing rights, the celebrity receives financial compensation, typically in the form of royalties. Depending upon the nature of the licensing contract, there may be limitations to what the third party can do with the intellectual property of the celebrity. They may only be able to utilize the property in certain markets, or for a specific period of time. In addition, there may be terms limiting the types of services or goods in connection with which the celebrity’s IP can be used. 名人授與有關其圖像、姓名、樣貌等智慧財產權與第三人時，該人可為其商業利益而利用之。名人可因上開權利之授與而取得酬償，通常以取得權利金方式作為授權之對價。基於授權契約之內容，對第三人得利用上開智慧財產權，得加以限制。諸如限制第三人只能在特定市場或特定期間利用上開智慧財產權。此外，還可限制上開智慧財產權只能用於某類型之服務或商品。 ※尊重著作權；違法利用，本人必究。
Just two months after prevailing in a copyright infringement lawsuit in connection with a photo she posted of herself on her Instagram account, Gigi Hadid has been named in a new lawsuit – this time for the “unauthorized reproduction and public display of a copyrighted photograph of English singer and songwriter Zayn Malik.” According to the copyright suit filed by professional photographer Robert O’Neil in a New York federal court on Friday, Hadid added a photo of former boyfriend Malik to her Instagram story in June 2018. The problem? She did not have O’Neil’s permission to do so. 名模吉吉哈蒂把自己的照片po在自己的instagram帳號涉及侵害著作權訴訟勝訴兩個月後，又在另一新訴訟中，列名為被告。所涉及之侵權情事為，非經授權重製及公開展示其與一位英國歌手及作曲人Zayn Malik同框有著作權之照片。根據職業攝影師Robert O’Neil 星期五於紐約聯邦法院提起侵害著作權之訴訟，哈蒂在2018年將含有其前男友Zayn Malik照片加入其instagram頁面裏。問題是？其並未獲得O’Neil’的同意。（待續）
Acting Agents – Exclusive and non-exclusive contracts 當職經紀人–專屬及非專屬契約 Exclusive An Exclusive contract with a talent agent means that your agent represents you for pretty much everything regardless of where the gig is. He represents you in New York, Los Angeles, Wichita…. where ever you go and whatever you do. Most exclusive agreements entitle the agent to their commissions even if they did not get you the gig or have anything to do with it. 專屬經紀契約意指不管你身在何處你的經紀人均係你的代表，不管你身在何處如紐約、洛杉磯、威奇托，亦不管你為何事，經紀人均代表你。絕大部分之經紀契約使經紀人都能獲取傭金，即便他們未能使藝人獲取酬勞或者使藝人後取酬勞而無所作為。 Non-Exclusive非專屬契約 This is the more popular type of contract and it is less restricting than the Exclusive contract. A Non-Exclusive agreement basically states that you can have more than one agent and is a popular choice for actors that work out of different cities. You can have one agent for New York and another for Los Angeles. The agent that gets paid is the one who sent you to the audition. 此種非專屬經紀契約係較受歡迎之契約態樣與專屬經紀契約相比，係較不受限制。非專屬經紀契約基本上規範你可以有一個以上之經紀人，同時此種模式也較受藝人歡迎。 Exclusive An Exclusive contract with a talent agent means that your agent represents you for pretty much everything regardless of where the gig is. He represents you in New York, Los Angeles, Wichita…. where ever you go and whatever you do. Most exclusive agreements entitle the agent to their commissions even if they did not get you the gig or have anything to do with it. 專屬經紀契約意指不管你身在何處你的經紀人均係你的代表，不管你身在何處如紐約、洛杉磯、威奇托，亦不管你為何事，經紀人均代表你。絕大部分之經紀契約使經紀人都能獲取傭金，即便他們未能使藝人獲取酬勞或者使藝人獲得酬勞與經紀人所為無因果關係，亦不生影響。 Non-Exclusive非專屬契約 This is the more popular type of contract and it is less restricting than the Exclusive contract. A Non-Exclusive agreement basically states that you can have more than one agent and is a popular choice for actors that work out of different cities. You can have one agent for New York and another for Los Angeles. The agent that gets paid is the one who sent you to the audition. 此種非專屬經紀契約係較受歡迎之契約態樣與專屬經紀契約相比，係較不受限制。非專屬經紀契約基本上規範你可以有一個以上之經紀人，同時此種模式，也較受藝人歡迎，同時提供藝人身處於不同城市一個不錯之選擇。你可以在紐約有個經紀人，同時在洛杉磯也有個經紀人。可獲得報酬之經紀人是可以使你大量曝光的那個推手。 Contract terms契約期限 Contracts are normally signed for period of a year even though sometimes longer terms are used. Many people are afraid of contracts and beginning actors sometimes get the misconception that they are now in someway “owned” by the agent. With most contracts that is not the case and the contract is a way to make sure that you pay the agency if you got the gig they sent you on. 契約正常以1年為期，即使有時會長於1年。許多人懼怕契約同時一些剛起步之藝人有時誤解他們為經紀人“所有”。契約是你獲得報酬將之提付與經紀人酬勞的一種方式。 A contract is nothing to fear. It spells out the agreement between both sides and what each side provides the other. If you believe your agency is not doing its job you can request to end the agreement in writing. If an agency is unhappy with your performance, they will simply not send you to auditions and you may never get anything in writing from them. 無需懼怕契約，契約是雙方明確規範雙方權利義務之一種書面協議。倘若你認為你的經紀人不能勝任的話，你可以書面終止經紀契約。假如你的經紀人對你的表現不甚滿意，他們將不會為你力爭試鏡機會，同時也不會以書面方式告知你。
Right of Publicity v Copyright Infringement 知名度v著作權侵權 There have been instances in which a Right of Publicity claim has been preempted by Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim. The Ninth Circuit recently found that a Plaintiff actor’s claim that his Right of Publicity had been violated was preempted by the Copyright Act because the “factual basis of his right of publicity claim was the unauthorized reproduction of his performance on the DVDs.” Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the “essence” of Plaintiff’s claim was the reproduction and distribution of DVDs without authorization, which fell under Copyright protection. Explaining the rationale behind this, the Ninth Circuit stated that: “Were we to conclude that [Plaintiff’s] misappropriation claim was not preempted by the Copyright Act, then virtually every use of a copyright would infringe upon the original performer’s right of publicity.” Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006). 最近有一案例，知名度優先著作權而受保護。第九巡迴法院最近認定，原告起訴主張其知名度被侵害優先適用著作權法而受保護；因該知名度訴求之事實上依據係未經其授權重製DVD上 之表演，Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2010). 所以，原告訴求之重製及散布DVDs，其落入著作權之保護。詮釋其背後之理論，第九巡迴法院闡述，我們總結原告起訴主張盜用著作權並不應先適用，實際上每一利用著作權係侵害原創表演者之知名度。Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006).