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.
In fact, the supermodel didn’t even bother to hire a lawyer over the photographer’s suit.
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.
According to Copyright Lately, it appears that Hadid may have “got off easy” as a result of her actions – or lack thereof.
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.
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.
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.
Image credits: Header photo licensed via Depositphotos and center photo via court documents