Slashdot Mirror
Geek Wins Copyright Lawsuit Against Corporation
Chris Gregerson writes "I work as a stock photographer/web developer. I saw a photo of mine used in Vilana Financial's full-page phone book ad. They wouldn't pay the licensing fee, and I wrote about it online (mirror). They sued me for defamation, producing a sales agreement signed by one ' Michael Zubitskiy' (who they said took the photo and sold the rights to them). I sued them for copyright infringement, and they added claims against me for trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and tortuous interference. There was a trial I'll long remember on the 5th of November, and the judge recently issued her verdict (PDF; mirror). She ruled Vilana Financial forged the sales agreement and willfully infringed my photos, and awarded me $19,462. All claims against me were denied. I represented myself during the litigation."
Justice was served, and you got the shysters to pony up 11 times what they would have paid if they'd just purchased the photos in the first place.
People like to dis the "IANAL" posters here, but I have found that a little bit of amateur legal knowledge, even stuff picked up from Judge Judy and the intarweb, can take you a long way in life. At a minimum you should know the basics of how contracts are enforced, what kind of evidence is acceptable in court, and how not to piss of a judge. Common sense will get you most of the way, but you need to know just a bit about the lingo and the process.
The story's author did, for having the balls to stand up to a thief by himself.
If I told you what I think you were, this post would be modded down as flamebait.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Finally a little man stood up to a corporation and won! And on Guy Fox day nonetheless. I'm just wondering where all the money for attorneys came from.
The game.
Could you post which picture it was? Preferably with any watermarks removed, and in the highest resolution you have, just for...informational purposes ;-)
This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
The old saying goes: "A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."
You are a shining example of the fact that there is an exception to every rule. Good job!!!
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
umm, what a great big surprise. Anyone would think the copyright system was designed to grossly bias the copyright owner or something.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What happened to Imaginary Property Rights???
Why is it okay for a geek to sue for this?
I mean data wants to be free and that picture is just data.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
and you sued them? Interesting the first few posts are of support, wonder what the reponse would be if this story was about the RIAA.
The PDF states: "Plaintiff could have sought the profits Defendants derived from the infringement as damages but chose not to do so. Although Plaintiff included a request for this type of damage award in his First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 76], he abandoned his claim for profits in his Second Amended Complaint and did not pursue this theory of relief at trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff's damages are limited to actual damages--that is, the fair market value of Defendants' uses of the Skyline photo."
Now that you've won spectacularly, is it possible to pursue those damages?
Also, this caught my attention: "However, Vilenchik's deposition testimony was that Zubitskiy called him at the following number: 612-963-2900. What would make this phone number particularly easy to recall eludes the Court."
Assuming that 612 is the local area code and doesn't need to be memorized, the rest of the number is quite easy. 963... geometrically, it makes a nice line up the right side of the keypad, and the 2900 is trivial to remember as well. Perhaps 29 has some special significance and, even if not, how hard is it to remember that? Regardless, the rest of the defendant's is basically BS anyways but that point stuck out as being not implausible.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I remember reading about this a while back... seemed like an open-and-shut case, glad to see justice was served.
Though, if I recall, the other business (another small business, the word "corporation" gives the wrong impression, by the way) was run by Russian or similar "businessmen". Be careful, because some of the other tactics they might use in the future are a little... unsavory. Just sayin'.
This seems like a pretty boring and routine infringement case. I'm glad the photographer won his case but why is it on slashdot?
Also it strikes me as a mistake not to hire an attorney in a case like this. Almost certainly you could recover attorney's fees and it just seems silly to risk getting blindsided by some legal rule you didn't know about. The courts do give pro se litigants extra room but why take the risk?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Agreed. Note that you will now be moderated into the ground. The copyright holder is the underdog in this case.. we must all praise the underdog!
Or at least that's how he'd like us to see it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm a law student, and I'm not so sure I'd have the guts to represent myself on much! (Granted, I haven't studied this particular area of law yet)
So, not only did you win, but you'll get to pocket most of it yourself! Way to be!
What if the headline read:
Copyright holder sues bewildered company because of his desire for dirty dirty money.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Mod parent up. I choose to license most of my content (primarily educational resources for parents and teachers) under Creative Commons style licenses, but I fully support the right of copyright holders to choose whatever license they deem fit for their work. How in the hell did the parent post get modded down?!?
Let me put it this way: I'm typing this from an Ubuntu workstation, running Firefox. I appreciate the software I use, and fully respect the fact that it's licensed under the GPL (most of it, anyways). You can't have your cake and eat it too; either you support copyright law (whether it's via "copyleft" licenses or not) or you don't. Make up your damned minds already.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Apples to oranges, really ... this guy had incontrovertible evidence that his rights had been stepped upon, the court agreed with him. The RIAA operates to a much lower standard, both in terms of the "evidence" they present, and their reprehensible courtroom behavior. If this guy had manufactured some evidence out of thin air and used it to sue someone at random, I'd say you'd be closer to the mark.
Keep in mind also, that the creeps who ripped him off used his work to make a substantial sum of money. Indeed, they pretty much pirated his work in the legal sense of the term (this wasn't for personal use, it was for profit.) If the RIAA were suing someone that took a copyrighted work, put their name on it and sold it as their own, I don't think many people here would complain.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The defendants tried a counterclaim for defamation. The court commented:
...
Similarly, the statement that Defendants were suspected of fraud and forgery was a true statement of fact reflecting Plaintiff's belief that Defendants fabricated Zubitskiy and forged his signature on the 3/19/04 Agreement, which was also fraudulently notarized. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not engage in deceptive trade practices in violation of Minn. Stat. 325D.44,
Defendants' counterclaims against Plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Reading the decision, it's clear what the judge thought of the defendants. They tried forging a notarized document. They couldn't produce the person whom they claimed took the picture. From then on, it was all downhill for the defendants.
This is what I love about the law. One side always makes up a remarkable and entertaining story.
I'm not a lawyer. I know when to use one.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I'm Russian and I live in Chicago. It seems that all Russian communities are essentially the same. Backstabbers and thieves are overrepresented by a mind boggling margin. The story you tell sounds all too familiar. It feels good to know that for once a honest person was able to use the court system with success. Best of luck with your photography and your business!
So ripping off a stock photo is Bad and this guy did good by pushing for his rights and winning.
But pirating copyright music via p2p etc is OK because nobody got hurt right.
ENOCOMPUTE
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Now you just have to hope the Russian mafia doesn't break your legs!
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
That is all.
You're always welcome to try another site.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Since they obviously perjured themselves and presented falsified instruments. If this trial would've happened in Texas, the defendants would've been charged with the crimes and escorted out of the courtroom in handcuffs by the bailiff, yes, even though it was a civil trial. Civil court judges have the power to do this here in this state.
n/t
fsckr.com - go fusk yourself!
Agreed. However thin air is a bit of an extreme way to call their evidence :) Unfortunately It seems we are getting pretty close to fishing net law enforncement though, but you cannot discuss the issues even here without getting modded as flamebait, let alone to narrow minded law makers :)
I personally make a distinction between non-commercial/educational use and use for commercial gain (the RIAA goes after private individuals who shared music with other private individuals non-commercially). I went after a business who had a budget for photography, but cut me out of the loop to increase their profit margin at my expense. I barely make a living at photography, which is why I was pro-se (I couldn't afford an attorney).
I don't know what the fix is for the current copyright system, but anything that allows content creators to earn a living (without having to sue people) is fine with me.
www.cgstock.com
You really are an anonymous coward.
it was used for commercial gain you autistic fuck
1) I assume he's looking for a comment from someone like me. I.E. wondering if those who consider IP to be imaginary can explain why they hold that view in a story like this without hypocrisy.
2) I don't have a problem with him suing these guys because of the fraud angle. I don't care as much about the picture itself, but the way they tried to snow him was very, very wrong.
3) Reread Shannon's Law sometime if you think they're different. You're correct about the usual phrasing, though.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Nevertheless, if the story were in essence reversed and it was about a faceless company suing an unrepresented guy and getting a hefty award of damages for some relatively minor IP infringement, we'd get a bunch of bearded geek hippies rambling on about how "information wants to be free" and "I don't believe in imaginary property" and so on.
Do you seriously think that if a geek used a company's photo without a license & when caught, fraudulently filed suit for defamation, following it up with trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and tortuous interference, that geek hippies would equate this with information wanting to be free?
Seriously? Or perhaps you were just wanting to have a pathetic little dig at your perception of slashdot groupthink.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Where'd you get that idea from?
I'm also curious as to whether the litigious putz in this case owns the copyright on the other image used in the ad. If not then why is he now publishing that ad on the internet?
It says in the blog that the cheaters removed the watermark.
Is it really worth the effort to do that? I could go out and take some decent photos for less effort than it would take me to get those watermarks off. Maybe that's just because I know more about photography than unscrupulous image processing.
Actually, this is how teh press works as well.
..
He ought to be able to sell his story if the company is big enough
Insert
Now, let me start by saying that what the "large faceless corporation" did in this case was clearly wrong. No matter how you feel about an artists' work and their ability to charge what they want for it, telling them to piss off and using their work anyway, then lying to a judge about it is not only wrong but stupid.
That being said, I am recently finding myself unable to wrap my brain around how photographers charge for their work and how they can justify their business model.
Case in point: I'd like to get my kids' pictures taken. No print ad campaigns or web advertisements, just pictures of my kids, maybe myself and my wife. In the past we've used a place that takes really nice pictures, but they insist that the only way you can get their prints is to purchase print packages from them. I understand they are trying to make back their money invested in the initial sitting, but I can't wrap my head around how they are trying to take an old business model (selling photographic prints) and apply it to this new, digital age. All of their cameras are digital, but they won't sell me the RAW digital files, not for any price. However, they also delete the copies after 90 days, so they take digital pictures, print me out copies, then (presumably) destroy the originals.
Now, I'm by no means a photographic professional, but I know my way around Photoshop, and can think of dozens of things I'd like to do with these pictures, maybe now, maybe 20 years from now, I don't know. What I'd really like is a photographer whom I could pay for his/her time and the use of their equipment to produce pictures that I can do whatever the hell I want with. I've called around and can't find anyone who operates in such a way. The photographers I talked to all said I was nuts to be looking for such a service, because they were unwilling to enter into an "open ended contract" whereby they lose control over their own work. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. In all honesty, I know how much I spent on the print packages I got in the past, and I'd be willing to pay a premium above and beyond that for such a service. Nobody is losing money, and in fact some photographer could get more of my money for providing less of a service. (i.e. maybe they don't have to print so many prints up front because I know that I can get more printed later somewhere else, or maybe even with them if their work is good and prices are fair.)
I design and install computer systems for a living. People pay for my time. Let's say I set up the network for some small startup operation called "Facebook." (I didn't, purely hypothetical) That operation takes off using the backbone that I set up, becoming one of the fastest growing and most successful business on the Internet. Guess how much of that $15 billion I'd see. (Or expect to see) ZERO. Never mind that it was my genius design that enabled them to do what it was they were trying to do. I went in, did a service, and I was done. Why is photography inherently different?
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Why do I suddenly have to think of a Steampunk sequel to Star Fox where you fly around London in a steam-powered biplane trying to defeat the evil monkey monarch Jamesdross who wants to overturn all of London (and perhaps Berkshire and Surrey while he's at it)? Instead of smart bombs you get Kegs O' Powder. Hours of fun shooting down waves of steam-jetpack-wielding bobbies!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The worst part about this is that you are probably going to convince some other poor slob to try this
He'll have a hard time if they read the ruling first! He could have claimed far more money: all the profits the defendants received from the publications. Plus, on top of that, he would have had a lawyer to do all the work for free since the fees would very likely have been assessed against the defendants as well.
My reading of the judge's ruling was that, while she was clearly very sympathetic to him and had a very low opinion of the defendants, she was also pointing out all the mistakes he made - effectively driving home the point you make.
From the web page of the /. hero of the hour:
Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan ruled that Vilana cannot copy my computer hard drives and I don't have to produce email between myself and my attorney. However, I must turn over email with the terms "Vilana", "Vilenchik", "Zubitskiy", "Kazaryan", "Walker", etc. I sent Vilana's attorney a DVD with over 500 emails...they can sift through my private thoughts and feelings about their misconduct as described to my parents, sisters, and friends. Note: at trial in November, 2007, Vilana's attorney actually cross-examined me on these emails, which did not appear to prove anything except my own version of events.
Note to self: if ever thinking of getting involved in litigation, seed potential keywords into an email spam generating engine of some kind. "All emails with terms (keyword)? Certainly - here's 8G of text for you to read..."
Congratulations to Mr. Gregerson. Reading the timeline shows it was a long, hard battle that many would have given up on.
|>
Here be Dragons
You mean that the science on Knight Rider isn't all true? You mean I can build wings like on Gilligan's Island and fly? What is this world coming too when you can't get all your science lessons from Hollywood?
Fight Spammers!
I know corporations are protected and stuff from the things the corporation does as a whole, but someone forged those documents, and that person committed perjury and attempted tp pervert justice. Can a blatantly illegal act like that really be shielded simply by being employed by a corporation? If I pay my employees to rob banks, will we be shielded? I think not!
19 grand for a corporation that blatantly forged documents? Its a laughingly tiny fine for a corp. They basically got let off even though they committed what sounds like perjury in court. Its disgusting.
The ruling says that removing a "digital watermark" triggers some DMCA sanctions: the guy embedded a digital watermark saying the image was copyrighted by him, using a particular watermarking tool. The posted images lacked the watermark. The court ruled that this meant they "removed copyright control information". I'm all for punishing copyright infringers, but note that in general there is no way to tell if a watermark has been embedded in an image or not. So, this metes out extra punishment for copyright infringement based on the rights holder embedding an undetectable booby-trap in the copyrighted work. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
I just read the timeline and complete judgment, and, while the facts of the case seem very clear, with the amount of motions and countersuits, it still took OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS of the photographer's time from initial filing to obtain this result. Had he hired representation, which I agree would have been wiser, it is not clear he would have been able to afford the proceedings. This seems to have been the defendant's tactic -- to stall and countersue in order to win by attrition. The sad thing is that the photographer had to be stubborn, naive, and lucky to get justice here. When cheated by somebody with more resources, the little guy increasingly seems to have two choices -- be foolhardy, and represent yourself, or swallow it. How practical, but how depressing.
When the hell has a Photographer ever been classed as a geek? Get this crap off Slashdot and go gloat somewhere else..
Having successfully sued people and companies, the easy part is winning the court case.
Actually making them pony up the cash is the hard part.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Maybe I'm missing something here. But didn't a Judge just find that a financial firm involved in mortgages filed false documents with a court under oath?
Wouldn't that put them out of business? How can they act as a party in getting Deed Insurance if they have been found to lie under oath?
The signal-to-noise ratio here isn't looking very good, so I thought I'd just poke out a quick additional congratulations to try to better things.
Oops, sorry, In Capitalist America Former Soviet Russians sue you!
Whenever the RIAA screams about a geek committing copyright violation and calling it theft, we always go to great lengths to point out that copyright violation is not theft, and it is also not piracy. Those are different things. If they were the same, we wouldn't need a law about copyright violation on the books - it would already be covered.
And while I'm at it, how about if we use this case as an example to use against the RIAA the next time they say a single instance of copyright violation causes millions in damages? $19k sounds about right to me.
Come to think of it, it's too bad this guy couldn't pinch some RIAA lawyers to represent him. With the math they use, he'd be a millionaire.
"Well, we assume about $2000 for the single user licensing rights, and the magazine has a circulation of millions, therefore we seek damages to the tune of two billion dollars."
Dr. Evil pinky is optional at this point.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Suppose I have a great idea. Why should I bother developing my idea with my own limited time and money if Microsoft or Google will simply hear of it and then use their billions of dollars to copy it?
If I don't even have a REASONABLE amount of time shielded from competition in which I can develop my idea into a company, I simply cannot compete with the amount of money large corporations will shell out to steal my idea for their own profit. The end result? Since there is a slim chance of me being rewarded as an investor, the idea does not get developed, and society does not benefit from it.
This fictional invention of mine qualifies as IP as much as any song or photograph. And I am not a "fuckin' moron" to think that protecting innovators from billion-dollar businesses "copying their ideas" (for a reasonable period of time) will encourage innovation.
I wouldn't be surprised if a few of Vilana Financial's customers felt like they've been screwed over. What do you think Vilana's chances are if the sued by one of the customers after they've been found to have already forged documents?
First, good for OP. Making it through that situation without counsel is a nontrivial task.
As for the case, I think we can agree(regardless of our positions on intellectual property) that the chaps he was up against are complete scumbags. Riping off a photographer for your advertisements, throwing up a cloud of spurious charges against him when he calls foul, forging notarized documents and lying to a court about it is behavior indicative of a complete lack of ethical standard. It disturbs me that this fellow is, presumably still, active in financial and real-estate activities. I suspect that OP isn't the only guy who has been or will be ripped off.
I think we ought to consider doing what we can to make sure that Google displays a strong correlation between the name of the guilty company and this story for some time to come.
Well, the kicker here is the "Andrew Vilenchik is dismissed from the case" part. In other words, he just won a $20k judgment against what is most likely a shell corporation at this point. Unless he can get that part appealed, he'll never see a dime. Seems to be a pretty hollow victory to me (leaving out the emotional satisfaction).
Even if he does win on appeal, the guy sounds shifty enough to dodge any serious attempt to get him to pay up. At best, even if he can get the courts to run this guy to ground, I think he's looking forward to, at best, $50/week court ordered checks for the next 7 1/2 years or so.
However, I think if you totaled up the various court costs and just the simple time it took, it probably wasn't worth it. Sure, the Defendant looks to be (imho) a scumbag, but guess what, the world's full of them, and if there isn't enough time in the day to deal with all of them.
I'm not saying don't go after someone who steps on your work, but (IANAL) going pro se with anything to do with money in this day and age is incredibly foolish. The playing field at the Federal level isn't even close to balanced. To hit a home run in case like this (which this guy didn't come close to) would be like winning a pro baseball game when you're the only player on your side.
Like it or not, if you don't have the dollars to run a case like this to ground with a pro at the helm, you're taking a hell of a risk. At the end of the day, this guy managed to stumble and bumble his way to a not very favorable judgment. If the other side (attorney's and client) hadn't been largely incompetent, it might have gone very badly for him.
To our photographer friend: On the emotional satisfaction front, way to jump up and down on a scumbag. 13,758,126 more of them to go (just in America). And, if you're not to busy, Canada has 3 or 4 you might want to take care of as well.
-Sarge
Sorry to read the details, but that's just the way I am. I don't get much done, but what I do do is quality work...
Another $5,000 for removing the watermark (more than the value of the photo itself), plus another $10,000 in punitive damages, "just because the judge said so".
Well, like Mom always said, it is better to fess up than face the wrath of being caught in a lie.
The cover-up always costs more than the crime, it seems.
And, yes, I did say "do do" on purpose.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I notice that his mirror has exceeded permitted bandwidth due to slashdotting, so presumably it will cost him $19,462 in excess bandwidth charges :-)
I find it all good that justice is served. Only thing I'm worried now is the mention of Russian mob.
I hope Chris won't be sleeping with the fishes soon..
You have two point of attention, the car lights and the building. They are separated by the grey backs of two large road signs. The car parked in the foreground is bisected by a prominant parking meter. The bottom right hand corner is just a mass of black. This is a snap shot taken with a long shutter time, a wide lense and a tripod, but it's still a snap shot. Spend some time looking through the viewfinder before you hit the button. In this case, find a better vantage point. -- This is a comment on the photo, it has no relavance to the trial, the outcome etc --
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
I'm sorry, but you'd have to be to be posting this here. This is the place where people hate the copyright system and what it ends up doing, so why on earth would you bring that up here?
Oh, wait, it's OK for someone to get rich off of a shitty copyright law. It's when a corporation gets rich off of it that it's not cool. I forgot that slashdot imposes a double standard on everything.
Therefore, why isn't it a GPL'd image!
[/rant]
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
It's a problem of very low standards. The shows mentioned are better than many in that they don't get *everything* wrong.
House was great in the first season when it focussed on the politics of medicine rather than the medicine itself which was always far-fetched. Then the producers got timid and decided to shy away from the controversial and focus on the medical mysteries which got worse and worse. Omar Epps really started sounding like Jordi Laforge in terms of the mumbo jumbo coming out of his mouth. The episode where they used Geiger counters to look for home radiation for something that would have required Chernobyl to cause the symptoms is where they jumped the shark for me and I stopped watching. If House has fact-checkers, they either failed (or should have failed) biology or are consistently ignored.
CSI is similar. Always far-fetched, but with enough eye-candy to provide distractions at first. But things got worse and worse - and the episode with the drug induced cannibalism killed it for me. No amount of CGI can redeem Reefer Madness propaganda.
Numb3rs lost me in the pilot - I can only remember that the equations he was using would only work in an ideal situation and the math dude would have been smart enough to realize that...
I'm OK with the odd dramatic device *occasionally* stretching a point, but these shows do it so consistently that we might as well be watching X-files or Star Trek. I like STNG as much as the next guy but it didn't *pretend* to be a reflection of the real world as these shows do...
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges unless I could plant a tree in your yard,
or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the
plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are.
But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a
copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question
it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is
intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renaissance happened without
copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalency relationship between copyrights and property rights -
incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the
fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings
who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The
history of copyrights is not one of rights, but control of sharing and restricting the open use
of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thieves, or akin to pirates who board ships and
murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that
copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every
artist that makes it "big" there are literally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit,
even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to
copyrights that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood
culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide
reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust
behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the
biggest issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where
information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society
will either have to control all of it or none of it. Our communications will either have to be
monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected.
In that sense, copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms
until we cut it off at the root. The DMCA, infinite extensions, billion dollar lawsiuts, are all
just symptoms of a poor belief system - not the cause. So the efforts to find a "middle ground"
on copyrights are a failure because they do not address the core issue. That contrary to
copyrights, the right to copy and distribute creative works and knowledge is a right!
Like freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, the right to copy things is a right that
exists above government. It is a moral right, it is an inherent right, it defines the very nature
of the human condition. It is beyond politics and the petition of leaders.
In fact, the entire foundation of politics rests on the notion that it's better to fight wars
with words than wars with bloodshed. But to copy things does not require coercion or viloence at
all, the rules are not the same. We will not change the copyright situation by petitioning our
leaders, or voting to change the system. No it can only be changed by defiance.
Defiance by holding the belief that people have rights, even if those rights appear contrary to
the popular mob or to the system. Defiance, by shedding off the guilt and shame that those who
try to impose copyrights impose on us and understanding that they are the ones who should be
guilty and shameful. Defiance by copying and sharing creative works whenever we have access to
them. Defi
People are always saying that you can buy a court victory. While it's true that you can try to intimidate someone into giving up, once you get to court your case had better have some substance or you will lose no matter how many lawyers you hire.
Leaving the piracy/copyright infringement arguments aside I find the behavior of the company unbelievable arrogant.
Instead of "Ooops, it seems that we made a mistake/were fooled there" and settling the matter with the photographer they decide to fight him with all kinds of legal strong arm tactics. WTF?
Honestly, it should be 50000$. + Legal fees and maximum hourly rates for time wasted and some severence package for the stress on top.
This is what businesses need to get into their fricking head that it's a bad idea to get pissy with the small guy who is making a resonable claim that demands investigation. It would've taken them a few minutes research and a phonecall to settle the issue. They would've had the owner on their side in sueing the infringer into next wednesday and would've gotten a nice picture for a few hundred bucks and a mentioning on the corporate website or something.
Thanks for another example for that it makes sense to stand up for your rights if you know you are right, even if you're up agains a large legal entity.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It is long past the time that a society should endure this kind of behavior from its corporate citizens. They violated the photographers copyright. They lost in court. They should simply pay. To do otherwise shows contempt for the photographer, the court and the society in general of which they are a part.
I am not a fan of vigilanteism. The court should have the authority and the power to enforce (not just impose it) the pentalty in timely fashion. Nevertheless, a company that uses its lawyers to delay the payment of a judgment such as this one forfeits its place of standing in its respective community. It deserves to be treated as an outcast, a pariah, and punished economicly. This is a worthwhile role for so-called new media
So says the Anonymous Coward...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
"Any numbers backing that up?"
I've got better than that, I've got the judgement (so do you) where the judge stated
"Plaintiff could have sought the profits Defendants derived from the infringement as damages but chose not to do so"
Reading is your friend.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm curious about a few things:
1) Seems like there is pretty clear evidence for forgery and perjury. It seems like one of the defendant's employees notarized a forgery. Why isn't the D.A. involved?
2) I'm assuming that the defendant isn't just going to cut a check. What are his options? Can the plaintiff just show up one day at the office with a Bailiff, a court order and a moving van and start carting away 19,000 dollars worth of office equipment?
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Congratulations, let the pigs bleed .... 20K, enjoy!
Has anyone checked out how long this ruling took to occur? It's been 3 years. Not to mention, he's still being sued for tradmark infringment. If he had an attorney representing him, this would have been over much faster.
It's too bad you posted anon.
I made my living at wedding photography back in the dark ages. (I'm still a better photographer than 90% of the shooters I see exhibiting at bridal conventions. Still, that's not saying much, is it?) About 25 years ago, I changed career paths. Now I'm a few years from retirement and considering going back into wedding photography on a part-time basis. I don't need the money but I'd love to do it occasionally. The business model you describe is almost exactly the way I'd like to work.
If I knew who your wife was, I'd consider hiring her to consult for me. (Actually, just a few hours talking about the business would be all I need to know if I want to push forward with the idea.) In the absence of that information, do you know any person or organization that publishes applicable business process reference material? Back in the day, wedding seminars for photographers were a big business and I imagine they still are. Do you know of any that approach the business in a manner similar to what your wife does?
TIA for any info.
I'm happy for you, but I don't see the relevance to this forum...
It's not news, it's not particularly interesting to nerds, and it's not stuff that matters (to anyone but you)...
It strikes me as just a self-serving way for you to gloat in a public forum.
I'm really surprised that this story made it past the moderators.
Remember, remember the 5th of November! This guy sure will! /first post!
Bite my shiny metal ass!
That photo from a $129 stock CD ended up costing my employer about 5 grand.
It's notable here that in her ruling, the judge makes clear that the plaintiff could have gotten a lot more money by demanding the profits resulting from the ads with the pirated photos. The plaintiff mentioned this in his initial claim but did not follow through, thus abandoning the claim.
So let's scale back on the boasting about not using an attorney, ok?
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
The litigation itself might have been tortuous, but though IANAL I'm quite sure the proper legal term is tortious interference. Even if Firefox's spellcheck says that ain't a word.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
The difference is that it's the RIAA and record labels that get the money and not the the artists and creators of the work. If purchasing a CD or MP3 actually meant that the creator got the money I think more people pay for things. As it stands now you shell out $20 and the person who wrote and performed the song gots a dollar (or less).
If you're not rewarding the artist by paying, what's the point of paying?
Good for him, but . . .
"Nothing to see here, folks. Move along." -- Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun
sorry
If you RTFRuling, it says that the defendant failed to produce the original image fiels that they supposeldy got, and that the law and precedent says, in that case, that the judge may rule that the watermatks were removed. Basically, if the evidence requested would make the defendant look bad, and the defendant doesn't produce the evidence, the judge can rule that the evidence would make the defendant look bad, because if it wouldn't have, they'd have produced it.
Folks, you let this guy get you all riled up.
You should have listened to this guy instead.
His advice?
Don't feed the trolls!
Sage advice, from someone who knows. Heed it next time.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
"Less art, certainly... "
Please note: this is not *at *all certain, unless you are among those who (incomprehensibly) consider the works of Britney Spears, her little sister Jamie Lynn, their boy DelRoy, and every other music Bob Ross to be "art".
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Good work. Everyone else, get yourself a lawyer please.
This may be local to SE Michigan, but I have been using "My Photographer" for family photos. They charge a reasonable price for the sitting, an OK price for the enlargements/prints, and for a couple of bucks, will give you a CD with your "originals" on it. (before they went digital, they would sell you the negatives.)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Is nice to see that the justice system can still work for the common man in this country yet. Gives me hope. Thanks for sharing the news of your victory. Sounds like justice was served. Hopefully you will actually get your money, winning a suit and collecting are two different issues unfortunately. Mr. father-in-law was awarded 2.2 million about 8 years ago and has yet to see one dime of the money.
They choose to use his images and they suffer the consequences for it. It's really not that hard. If his photos had no value they would have taken the picture themselves.
You sell the photo.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Finally an appropriate use of copyright law! Way to go man. Glad to see a photographer get his due.
...he was just making too many assumptions and being too brief in his reply. I understood him completely. Since you didn't, I suggest you read this reply which says the same thing in lots more words (though hardly perfectly, IMO) and is a more appropriate response for people like you who haven't made their living as a photographer and, therefore, don't automatically know the difference between commercial contracts (almost always done as work for hire, unless the photographer is a major "name") and common consumer contracts (where the photographer retains more rights for reasons that are becoming less sensible as time and digital technology advancements march on).
Or you could even read this reply, which is about the best among all the people who've taken the time to respond to your question.
Your original question was reasonable and insightful, demonstrating perfectly forgivable and completely curable ignorance about an industry with which you have insufficient experience to understand. Don't screw it up by playing the smartass.
How do you make substantial sums of money off a photo of a skyline?
You put it on the cover of a phonebook.
Learn to love Alaska
This shows not only how difficult it is for the average Joe to litigate copyright infringement (18 months for ruling), but also how difficult it is to obtain damages. I suspect if this guy used a copyright lawyer for litigation, the awarded damages would have been much higher. The defendant clearly stole the picture without a valid licensing agreement and then appeared to deny doing so. The defendant even claimed the picture was licensed by a third party (who from the court documents did not even exist). Introducing this phony document alone should have resulting in serious damages awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was lucky as this third party did not appear in any search by skip traces. If the defendant used another fictitious third party name in a licensing agreement, one with perhaps a common US name, the plaintiff would have had even more trouble obtaining this ruling. If more damages were awarded, this would have set a better example to corporations that try steal intellectual property. Imagine how much this would cost (upfront) if a lawyer was involved. $20,000? $30,000? Unfortunately, because he litigated pro-se (represented himself without lawyer) he doesn't get awarded attorney fees. Not even for the cost of filing the lawsuit in court! He should at least be award that back!
I hope that it's no more sinister than a server crash.
Wikileaks, no DNS