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."

Comments

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

[QuantumG]

Who gives a shit. Chris runs a stock photos website. His business model is entirely money for jam and if ya can't get it, sue. Did you read the part of the judgment where it outlines the monetary demands and legal threats Chris made? This is classic stand-over copyright tactics and all these slashtards are applauding it because Chris has presented himself as being the little guy who took on the big corporation and won.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

[NathanBFH]

Conversely, there does not seem to be much sympathy for people who _sell_ pirated songs or attempt to use them for some purely commercial purpose.

On the contrary, posters regularly make heroes out of Pirate Bay and bittorrent sites which are making profits off of the traffic generated by their hosting of links to pirated files which, I would argue, is not much different than profiting directly from the sale of the files.

Re:so this is a good thing?

[QuantumG]

see these things -> ""

They mean that he said that, not me.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

[Kjella]

It's rather hard to morally defend the position "Well, I'm pirating this CD to save 15$ on buying it", that a penny saved isn't the same as a penny earned. There seems to be two lines of argument, one is the "information wants to be free"/"imaginary property" line which discards the whole concept, so nothing can be infringing whether it's commercial or not. The other line is to argue that the situation above doesn't happen, that "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" or "The free marketing is more worth" or some other variation of the theme, which all tend to fail Occam's razor. The easiest reason for someone to pirate something for free is because they can, not because of some constructed subset where it's morally defensible.

Let me contruct two scenarios:
1a. Megacorp owns copyright to "Absolute Music 2343"
1b. Sleezecorp makes pirate copies of "Absolute Music 2343" and sells for 15$
1c. Consumer buys "Absolute Music 2343" from Sleezecorp

2a. Megacorp owns copyright to "Absolute Music 2343"
2b. Consumer downloads a pirate copy of "Absolute Music 2343"

Megacorp comes out to the same, no sale in either case. In scenario one, Sleezecorp made commercial gain of 15$ and is thus morally corrupt. Now, in scenario two somehow everything is fine and nobody has reason to complain? Yeah. Sure. Throw in a few more leaps of logic like that and you'll think the world is 6000 years old and made in a week.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

[mdwh2]

I fail to see the difference.

You might not see a difference, but many people do - hence there's not a double standard.

Isn't personal enjoyment a sort of profit?

No.

What if I take the picture, turn it into desktop wallpaper, and post it on my web site to drive up hits?

If it's a commercial website, then sure, you'd be profiting from it.

Also there's a point of using their own rules against them. If individuals are expected to abide by copyright laws, it's a double standard if their IP is ripped off by corporations.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

[nbert]

Sure. The improvement in morale from being entertained makes me more productive (among other things). I can also discuss the movie with other people and improve my social standing.

All true, but your are not trading personal enjoyment for those things. You are consuming a good which serves the needs you mentioned. By your logic I could trade detergent for cleanliness, music for well being or bread for fullness. Those are not trades - they are goods I can consume with the effect of being clean, enjoyed or full.

Of course I can trade all 3 goods mentioned above, but then I would need at least one other person and something I get in exchange other than the things those goods can give me.

The size of the loss shouldn't have anything to do with it. If someone sneaks into my house and steals a penny, I'm fully within my rights to go after them, even though the size of the loss is trivial. A trivial loss is one that's not worth the time and effort to recover, not one that's excused.

Of course you have the right to seek compensation for whatever small loss you had. However, in your example the trespassing would outweigh the stolen penny by far.
Let's imagine 2 people sneak into your house, one stealing a penny and the other one $2000. Would you demand that both compensate equally and receive the same penalty? Now let's say your resources are limited and you can only go after one guy. Which one would you rather pursue?