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."
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.
Sorry, no, he was a fool.
If he had had a lawyer, he would have:
a) Been awarded a lot more money
b) Stuck the defendants with attorney's fees
It's all about the perception of who is on the other end, and how they go about enforcing things. Big established guy squashing little guy vs. little guy sticking up for himself against a bigger guy.
Emotional arguments aside, there are some real issues with the way recording companies operate.
Also, there's a significant difference between downloading a song for free and listening to it on your mp3 player and downloading a song by an unsigned artist for free, and then using it on a TV or radio ad, and then trying to claim that the artist sold you the rights when you're queried on it.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
taking a photo of a cityscape is hardly a skill.
If the photo had no value, then they wouldn't have felt like using it. There are lots of bad cityscapes; producing a decent one requires at least some skill -- and there is certainly labor involved in taking the time to do it. Your lack of appreciation does not mean there is no skill, or that the photo has no value.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Actually,if he is like most artists I know(and I have known quite a few) he probably wouldn't have any problem with someone taking a copy of his work to use as a screensaver,desktop wallpaper,or even making a single copy to hang on their wall. What he had a problem with was a company using his works for profit without paying him for its use. That is the difference between copyright infringement and piracy.One is simply making an unauthorized copy,while the other is making a profit off of someone else's work.I say good for him.But saying this is copyright infringement is misleading when it is actually piracy.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Well, there are always people on Slashdot that call copyright infringement theft, and always people who say it isn't theft; it's not amusing that you've found one of the former category, it's to be expected.
This situation is a little bit different from file sharing as well--the entity which comitted the copyright infringement was engaged in commercial (for profit) distribution without permission or restitution, and when asked to rectify the situation, failed to comply and attempted to bludgeon submission out of the copyright holder with legal intimidation.
I guess around here you're more likely to find people saying "get a goddamn rope" when a multi-million dollar corporation shits on the little guy, and "copyright is not theft" when the little guy shits on a multi-million dollar corporation. There isn't a difference of type between the two, but there is a difference in degree. Also, the extent to which a corporation can shit on you vastly exceeds your ability to ruin their day.
I guess what I'm saying is, the sterotyped geek/Slashdot response isn't de facto hypocritical, there's actually a fairly solid rationale behind it. You're welcome to disagree with some of the premises, and even to discuss them, but to pretend that it's idiotic to support this copyright holder while simultaneously using TPB to copy music is really just attacking straw men.
That "you can get more money with a lawyer" thing is exactly why the court systems are bogged up with frivolous lawsuits in the first place. It's the new American mentality and I can't stand it. This guy actually had a legitimate reason to sue, actually had the system work for him and give him his due, and all anyone can say is "He's an idiot for not having a lawyer to get him more money."
Just because the company infringing on his work was an asshat about it doesn't mean the photographer has to be. To do so would make him just like the RIAA we all despise. He got way more money than he lost from the infringement as it is; I'm certain stock photo rights do not amount anywhere close to $19,462. He only got that much because he had to go through all the BS to get what he deserved in the first place, and I'm sure he's more than satisfied with the award given. That "get more money and stick 'em with attorney fees" thing sounds downright malicious to me. Isn't it enough that the company was held liable for their use of the photograph in the first place? Nope, we gotta teach those bastards a lesson.
It wouldn't seem like such a good idea to you folks if you got sued, lost, and had to pay the awarded judgment, attorney's fees for yourself AND for the party suing you. Of course, you aren't an infringer of copyright, are you? Of course you're not.
Yeah, that just happened.
You are missing something very important.
When I (hypothetically) download an MP3 from, say, U2... and then go use it to sell stuff with. U2 comes around and (nicely) confronts me, and offers to allow me to pay for what I've used . I refuse, state U2 didn't actually write the song, and produce the (forged) recording-studio paperwork to 'prove it'.
Meanwhile, U2 is actually the damn band that recorded the thing.
Work on your reading comprehension, or turn down your assume-o-meter and/or jump-to-conclusion-ometer.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...