Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Geek Wins Copyright Lawsuit Against Corporation

Posted by kdawson on from the david-1-goliath-0 dept.

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."

5 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well done! by gmack · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I think I'd be as unlikely to trust Law and Order on legal matters as I would be to trust CSI and Numb3rs for science lessons. Shows produced by Hollywood need to make money even if it's at the expense of factual correctness.

  2. Re:$19,462 by mwvdlee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What is that amount based on anyway?
    Why not $19,461 or $19,463?
    And why isn't somebody getting sued with criminal charges for forging a contract?
    Seems to me $19,462 is little incentive for a company to stop forging other contracts.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  3. Re:No you didn't. by jotok · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Not only "not nice." If people cannot make money from their creative work, then they will find another job. Everybody wants the latest song by $ARTIST but they don't realize that if $ARTIST has to choose between songwriting and eating, paying rent, etc. then he probably will do something else.

  4. Re:No you didn't. by cswinter · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How thw hell did this get +5 insightful - "not infringement", "its piracy". Thats bollocks. The specified legal offence is copyright infringement under the intellectual property provisions of pretty much anywhere that has IP laws, piracy is governed by maritime law.

  5. Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too? by nbert · · Score: 0, Redundant

    All I wanted to point out was that there is no profit in watching a movie at least in economic terms. And yes, I've taken it too far - I blame my profession :)

    Of course copyright infringement is always wrong, but just like many others here I believe that the higher profit/loss makes it more objectionable.

    I know this can be criticized as a double standard, but if I'm guilty, most legal systems are as well...

    --
    I don't read replies by ACs.