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."
even stuff picked up from Judge Judy and the intarweb, can take you a long way in life
:-)
Don't forget Law and Order.
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.
n/t
fsckr.com - go fusk yourself!
I know the law, I just think it is non-sense.
I thought I made that pretty clear.
How we know is more important than what we know.
No, I'm saying copyright is a load of shit.. Are you honestly saying that you replied to me without reading the rest of the thread? Can I quote you some Usenet FAQs too?
How we know is more important than what we know.
If you actually think creating the work is the hard part and selling it is the easy part then I really don't have anything to fear from you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You're right. You haven't created anything that is worth money.
Read the judgment, linked in the summary. He demanded triple damages, then he demanded 10x damages, then he threatened to sue, then he tried to "shame" the other party into paying, and that's when they sued him. He wanted his cake (licensing fees) and to eat it too (not have to sue anyone) but they called his bluff. Unfortunately, they didn't do it all that well.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
Umm, a bit of clarification please... you say:
As someone who trained for a year to become a Lawyer
It takes much, much longer to become a lawyer, or even an Artical Clerk. Are you saying that you started your training and didn't finish; or that you, somehow, became qualified in one year?
My problem with the standard Slashdot arguments against intellectual property is that they're usually only used when getting free stuff is on the line (not accusing you personally of this). They can just as easily be applied to things like corporations ripping off individuals or more abstract things like privacy. If I don't keep you from using your house or harm it in any way, why is trespassing a problem? Why aren't medical records and financial statements called "imaginary property", and the draconian restrictions on their use criticized? I don't particularly like the RIAA and friends, and I don't think all of their actions are ethical, but I don't understand why the answer to that is "free stuff" rather than "stop using their stuff".
Visit the