Photographer Sued Getty — but Had Assigned the Copyright

Summary

• Nicolas Asfouri sued Getty over thousands of photographs he had made for AFP.
• A New York federal court dismissed the case on August 6, 2026.
• The ruling found that a 2008 contract had assigned earlier copyrights to AFP.
• Possessing files or registering copyright does not by itself undo a valid transfer.
• Asfouri has appealed, so the district court ruling is not the final word.

The Nicolas Asfouri v. Getty case shows that being the person who pressed the shutter is not always enough to establish who owns a photograph’s copyright today.

On August 6, 2026, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed professional photographer Nicolas Asfouri’s lawsuit against Getty Images. Judge Denise Cote found that he had not plausibly alleged ownership of the copyrights at issue because contracts he signed with Agence France-Presse provided for a broad assignment of those rights.

The decision matters beyond this dispute. For photojournalists, freelancers and creators working with agencies or clients, it is a reminder that creating an image, possessing the file and legally owning exploitation rights are different things. The district court ruling has already been appealed and may be reviewed.

What happened between Asfouri, AFP and Getty

Asfouri worked for AFP for roughly two decades, first as a freelancer and later as a staff photographer in several bureaus. According to the decision, he produced more than 40,000 photographs for AFP. In 2003, the agency entered a partnership with Getty, which supplied the infrastructure to license AFP photographs.

In April 2023, Asfouri notified Getty that he considered himself the sole copyright owner of images made between 2001 and March 2008 and demanded the removal of 10,755 photographs. Getty removed his photographs around June 20, but he alleged that it had continued offering at least 12,422 images for licensing in the meantime.

The lawsuit concerned 9,953 photographs registered with the US Copyright Office and sought damages for copyright infringement and allegedly false copyright management information.

What the photographer’s contracts said

A 2008 employment agreement for Asfouri’s move to AFP’s Thailand bureau was central to the case. The clause quoted in the ruling gave AFP a complete assignment of copyright and other intellectual-property rights in photographs and derivative works made for the agency, whether created in the future or in the past.

The court found the language unambiguous and not limited in time. It also rejected the argument that Asfouri had not read the agreement word for word before signing, noting that he had previously received another document with a similar clause and had an opportunity to review it.

A later 2016 agreement for the Beijing bureau also provided for an exclusive transfer to AFP for the duration of copyright. Asfouri refused to sign another agreement containing a retroactive assignment in 2022, but that refusal did not automatically cancel the earlier contracts.

Why registration did not establish ownership

Asfouri registered 9,953 photographs in the United States between 2019 and 2021. The pictures had been taken from 2001 through March 18, 2008, before he signed the key Thailand agreement.

Copyright registration is important for enforcing rights in the United States, but it does not erase a valid assignment. The court found that the documents relied upon by the complaint showed that the rights had been transferred to AFP. Registration in the creator’s name was therefore insufficient to establish the ownership required for the claim.

Why Getty’s licence remained effective

Getty had a licence from AFP to distribute the agency’s photographic material. The complaint did not explain how Getty exceeded a specific term of that agreement or how Asfouri, who was not a party to the AFP–Getty partnership, could revoke it unilaterally.

The court therefore rejected the infringement theory in addition to the ownership problem. It also dismissed the false copyright-management-information claim because the complaint had not established that Getty’s licensing terms were false or supplied with intent to facilitate infringement.

When rights belong to a photographer, employer or client

In the United States, the US Copyright Office explains that the initial author and owner of a photograph is generally the person who takes it. An exception may apply when an image is created within employment as a work made for hire or when the statutory requirements for a commissioned work and a written agreement are met.

Commissioning a photo shoot does not automatically give the client copyright. Likewise, delivery of RAW files, memory cards or prints does not by itself transfer the intangible rights. A contract can, however, assign copyright outright or grant an exclusive or non-exclusive licence of defined scope.

These principles describe the US framework and should not be transferred mechanically to Greece or another jurisdiction. Applicable law, employment status and the exact wording of a contract can change the result.

What professional photographers should take away

The practical point is clear: photographers need to know not only what they deliver, but which rights they transfer, for how long, in which territories, for which uses and for what compensation. Clauses covering older material or the full copyright term deserve particular attention before signature.

Contracts, licences, amendments, invoices and correspondence documenting the agreed use should be kept in an organised archive. Registration and accurate metadata remain important tools, but they do not replace verification of the chain of title.

What we think

The ruling does not say that photographers lack rights in their images. It says those rights can be transferred by contract and that such a transfer may remain decisive years later. The professional lesson is to treat every copyright clause as a core economic term, not boilerplate.

At the same time, Asfouri has appealed to the Second Circuit, so the case should not be described as final. The district court decision is a powerful warning, not an immutable answer for every future dispute among a photographer, an agency and a licensing platform.

Frequently asked questions

Who normally owns the copyright in a photograph initially?

In the United States, it is generally the photographer unless the image is a work made for hire or the rights have been validly transferred.

Does possessing RAW files prove copyright ownership?

No. Possession of the physical or digital file is distinct from ownership of the intangible exploitation rights.

Why was Nicolas Asfouri’s lawsuit dismissed?

The court found that he had assigned the copyrights at issue to AFP and that Getty acted under a licence from the agency.

Is the case over?

No. Asfouri appealed in August 2026 and the Second Circuit proceeding is ongoing.