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.
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.
Of course he thinks it is a good thing and is happy to post a story to Slashdot claiming so, but it doesn't mean all of us agree it is a good thing.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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:
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!
(a) It's not necessarily okay. Slashdot is a discussion site. Things are discussed here.
(b) Note all imaginary property monopolies are equal. Patents are far more evil than copyrights are far more evil than trademarks. The term "IP" is designed to conflate them and make nuanced debate difficult. Even parodies of the term, it seems, may have that effect.
(c) There is a difference between plagiarism and restriction on redistribution. In the complete absence of laws restricting redistribution (COPY rights), plagiarism could still be illegal/fraudulent. i.e. I could be permitted to go "here's a copy of the image LWATCDR's took. He sure is a talented photographer", but you could sue if I went "here's a copy of a cool image I took, I'm such a cool photographer", and I was trying to pass off your work as my own. Artists are generally concerned about plagiarism. Distributors care about distribution monopolies. If distribution monopolies exist, it's certainly fairer that the artist hold them (modern copyright law) rather than the distributor (old english common law design to keep the king's cronies powerful) - but that doesn't say whether distribution monopolies should exist at all. I say they shouldn't, but simultaneously say the penalties for plagiarism should be strengthened (they're particularly weak in the USA, ironically enough).
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
Intellectual property is just as imaginary as physical property. In both cases the government stops me from coming onto your property and shoving you off. In a purely natural world, I'd have the right to come in, shoot you, and suddenly have a nice plot of land.
However we WILLINGLY give up that right up to the government for the furthurence of society. Just like we WILLINGLY give up the right to be able to copy other people's ideas.
Some of us in fact DO agree with IP.
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.
Why is it okay for a geek to sue for this?
I mean data wants to be free and that picture is just data.
1) It is called "intellectual property", and this case sounds to me very much like how it is meant to work. This guy is making photographs for a living, and people should not use it without his consent. The damages also sound quite reasonable to me. Note that a photograph for use in your own publication normally costs much more than an audio recording in a retail shop, which you (and everyone around here) will probably want to compare it against.
2) It is OK for a anyone to sue for it. It is imho in principle even OK for an RIAA or MPAA to sue - as long as they follow the proper legal procedures, which they don't, and the damages demanded are reasonable, which they are not. This guy got like 10, 20 times the original price of the photo. That is a reasonable outcome I think. A price of USD1000-2000 for a photo with reproduction license is quite normal.
3) The expression is "information wants to be free", and this photo may be data, it is not information.
Wouter.
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.
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.
There are several differences here:
1. The evil corporation started playing hardball first.
2. The evil corporation was infringing the copyright for profit.
3. The evil corporation provably distributed copies of the copyrighted material, and the number of copies could be proven as well.
4. The evil corporation appears to have undertaken actions to attempt to defraud both the copyright holder and the court by giving testimony that a person sold the copyright to the corporation. (The ruling expresses doubt that this person even exists.)
5. The damages claimed were not ridiculous given the extent of the violations, substantially less than the amount available at law.
The difference being that with physical property when you take something you have clearly deprived someone of something else.
When you copy data you contribute towards diminishing it's "value", but the question must be raised: "if no one will pay money for something they can duplicate free-of-charge, does it have 'value' in an economic sense ? If not, is it 'right' for the government to enforce value by giving it's creator absolute legal control over it's distribution" ?
I don't have an answer to either question.
You're always welcome to try another site.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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
The "evil corporation" was a one man outfit.. Chris didn't mention that of course.
How we know is more important than what we know.
In this case, it's the profit involved. I would be upset and feel that someone who charged $50 for an unauthorized copy of Vista should be sued in a similar fashion.
Also, note that this damage award is fairly reasonable. $18,000 is a hefty price for a small-mid sized business, but not a 'this will destroy your business' damage award. Unlike the $100,000+ award given to RIAA over that woman in Duluth when real damages could likely be truthfully estimated in dollars or 10s of dollars and statutory damages of 100s of dollars would be reasonable (if the concept of suing a non-commercial distributor who derives no benefit from the distribution is reasonable at all).
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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.
Well for one thing data and information are the same thing.
The funny thing is I do believe that piracy is wrong. My post had more to do with they hypcracy on Slashdot than anything. Notice the evil cooperation posts trying to justify this.
If it is okay for this guy to sue and for the FSF to threaten legal action over the GPL then it is okay for file shares to get sued. Now the MPAA and RIAAs tactics are another thing.
If you don't think that file piracy is a crime then this guy is also part of the problem.
You can not have it both ways.
Now don't get me started on photographers! I think it is TOTALLY outrageous that I hire a photographer to take pictures of me and then he owns the rights to those pictures!
Now that is the dumbest thing I ever heard of but it is the way that it works.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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
Real property is imaginary in many ways too. At most, it's a piece of paper that declares something is yours. Sometimes it specifies certain lines.
I think calling IP "imaginary property" completely undercuts the argument of those that try to use it. If it's imaginary, then why do you want it, why are these people typically the kind that load up their internet pipe trying to get it?
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)
Patents are far more evil than copyrights
Patents are for a fixed 20-year term, and must be laid out in specificity for the good of the general public upon expiration. Patents are subject to a lengthy examination process to prove that they are novel and non-trivial extensions of the current knowledge.
By contrast, copyright is for the life of the author plus (currently) 70 years. Thanks to our Congress, everything created since 1923 could potentially still be protected. After 80 years of Mickey Mouse, he is STILL not in the public domain. Walt Disney croaked in 1966, and his copyright will last until at least 2024. See this article for more details.
Trademarks are designed to protect your interest in your "brand", and to prevent customer confusion. They are inherently a good thing.
I would posit that 1) trademarks are good for companies and the consumer; 2) patents are mostly a good system (with the possible exclusion of business method patents), and 3) that copyright is much more heinous.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
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.
Now that we've had clashing meaningless sentences, can I ask you to calm down a bit? You're really going on a rampage in this story.
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!
Well, the current system is not ideal (real world systems never are), but I think that some form of this is necessary. Take software, for instance; duplication is essentially free. That means that if I want to make a living selling software, I need to get as much as I possibly can from the initial sale(s)—after that, it's bound to be on a torrent site and then why would you pay me for it? It's true that occasionally you can get people to pay for something out of the kindness of their heart, but that's rather unreliable if it's going to be your sole source of income. Hence, if we don't have some mechanism in place for preventing rampant duplication, the price of goods affected is going to be prohibitively high.
Some people would argue that if you cannot make a substantial amount of money off of the product without artificial copy controls, it's not worth that much. This is a fine view, sure, except that you're essentially saying that you never want to see a large project completed. I'm obviously not going to spend $50 million to develop, say, a popular game if I have no chance of making that back. I would say it's highly unlikely that you could make a decent profit off that much investment if everyone could duplicate your product free of repercussions.
Schlock Mercenary
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 obvious answer to this question is that among the million-plus slashdot readers, there probably exist differing opinions about copyright. The same people who push "information just wants to be free" need not be the same people supporting this.
However, it's fully possible to conceive of how one could be anti-RIAA/anti-proprietary and still support this ruling. Common objections to the current state of IP include the fact that copyright lasts 70+ years, denial of fair use rights, draconian legal tactics, and pursuing non-commercial infringement. None of those factors apply here. This is a recent photograph (I'm assuming, since it's on Flickr) and the infringement was commercial, not personal. The results of this legal action don't restrict my freedoms in any way, and the tactics used to obtain victory don't trample all over privacy. Only people absolutely against copyright (or extremely pro-corporation) would hate this ruling.
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.
When the hell has a Photographer ever been classed as a geek? Get this crap off Slashdot and go gloat somewhere else..
Er, unless I'm missing something, that appears to be a wildly inaccurate reading. Vilana Financial and Vilana Realty are certainly not a one man outfit. According to the verdict they do have one person as principal shareholder, but that's really not the same thing.
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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Seriously, if you actually believe there should be laws against "copying other people's ideas" then there is no hope for you.
And if you actually believe that copyright protects other people's ideas, then there isn't much hope for you, either. For a guy who seems to be responsible for about every other post in this discussion about copyright, you're pretty uninformed about what copyright is.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
In the case of photographers, copyright isn't exactly cut and dried. While the photographer you hired to take your picture has the copyright on the picture (unless the contract says otherwise), he does not have unrestricted rights to use that picture unless he got you to sign a model release. There was a case a while back where an Australian ad agency got into hot water for using a picture licensed under the Creative Commons license, they were OK as far as the license was concerned but did not have a model release from the subject of the photograph.
"Seriously, if you actually believe there should be laws against "copying other people's ideas" then there is no hope for you."
Um, dude? Relax, step away from the keyboard, and let's take a trip to the clue store, shall we? I'm buying.
Nobody, not Lessig, not Stallman, not Linus himself, thinks that we need to abolish the laws against "copying other people's ideas". First of all, copyright cannot inhere in an idea, but only in an expression of an idea, so your comment isn't even relevant to the topic of copyright infringement. Ideas aren't copyrightable, but they are patentable, so let's talk about that, shall we?
If it's patent abolition that you're gunning for, let's keep in mind a few things: 1) research costs money. 2) Publication of research exposes it to copying by parties who haven't paid for the research. 3) Patents are a bargain struck between inventors and the general public, which restrain for a limited time the commercial use of patented inventions in return for the inventor sharing their research with the world. 4) The patent system, equitably administrated, demonstrably increases the amount of research and invention taking place by 5) allowing inventors to amortize the costs of research over the duration of the patent -- a condition from which we all benefit.
Now, there are good and persuasive arguments that the current patent system is inequitably administrated, for example that the scope and duration of patentable invention is overbroad, or even that there are whole areas of patent that don't suit the purposes of the law (e.g., software, business methods, and patents on genetic sequences found in nature.)
But nobody with the sense God gave a turnip, even on the side critical of strong IP, thinks that there shouldn't, in certain circumstances and under certain limitations, be laws against "copying other people's ideas."
I can recommend a few books, if you'd like.
Cheers,
(Anon. Coward because I forgot my password.)
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.
That will all change in 2023, you just wait and see.
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
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
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
But mickey mouse is a trademark so I'm not sure how that's ever going to end up in the public domain. And most of harry potters characters are individually trademarked as well... to prevent confusion right? ;)
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 basically agree, but want to point out I also got to keep my grip webpage up (they sought an injunction against it). I shouldn't have had to go through this, but I figured the outcome might deter other bullies who want to silence online critics.
www.cgstock.com
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 you ever read more than the headings of articles you'd know that /. has featured more than enough articles about this sort of thing. Slashdot doesn't 'hate copyright', it opposes copyright abuse, be it through patent stupidity or IP theft. It doesn't matter whether a piece of work is licensed at all: copyright still exists particularly for situations like this, and the right to assert copyright is the right to be protected from having your work used without attribution. The GPL isn't for photography: that's why Creative Commons exists, and CC does not preclude the right to attribution or indeed the right to make money out of intellectual property. Try and understand the issues before making yourself look stupid. It saves time.
> If it's imaginary, then why do you want it
I dont remember he said he wanted it to be "his property".
> why are these people typically the kind that load up their internet pipe trying to get it?
Why shouldnt they?
> Real property is imaginary in many ways too. At most, it's a piece of paper that
> declares something is yours.
The main feature of property is not that it requires a paper saying its yours but the fact that it is not copyable and above all, that it is scarce. Scarcity requires some kind of a rule to allocate goods since people would be fighting 24/7 to get more of them. They would be fighting since there is no practical way to get a physical good from someone without having to force him to give it to you. So according to you, the physical equivalent to copyright infringement would be to go to someones house, take his camera, and beat him up if he tries to prevent you.
Since the majority of the people does not like fighting, to avoid (or minimize significantly) permanent fighting most people agreed to have laws who protect them from the violent grabbers. The biggest part of the people does not object such laws since the majority of the are some kind of property owners not willing to fight permanently and the violent grabbers are a very miniscule minority.
You will have observed that with "imaginary property" it is not so. It 1. isnt scarce so you dont have to fight for your piece, 2. is easily (very easily) copyable without even letting the original owner know, and 3. you can just copy it instead of having to beat someone up to get it and then you both have it.
With "imaginary property" it is again completely different. It defines itself not from having something of value, like with usual property, but completely from exclusivity, i.e. from everybody else not having it. Its some kind of envy property, since its proprietor considers it practically worthless if not only he has it. Stupidly, the medium the imaginary property owners would like nobody else to have for their imaginary property concept to "work" is as easily copyable and widely available as for example air, so for having their imaginary property work, they would literally have to cut of millions of people off the air supply.
So here we have a very small minority of "rights owners" trying to _stop_ the very large majority of people from openly communicating with each other since by communication they can spread bits which those rights owners just declared their imaginary property without any kind ofagreement with the majority being censored. The people didnt like to be censored by for example Stalin or by the catholic church, so you also can easily imagine they do not want to be censored by self proclaimed "rights owners".
Imaginary property rights are thus tried to be imposed by a small majority on a great majority not by simply locking them out of some piece of land or something, but by actively censoring their communication, wide scale. For the imaginary property to work it is also required to actually punish those who dare to spread a piece of information to their peers. Since nowadays passing along information bits got pretty simple there seem to be so many of them, in fact too many for the imaginary rights owners to punish all of them, so very disproportional punishments had been introduced, which include ruining lifes of caught individuals as a deterrent of others to stop communicating and to accept somebody elses imaginary property on their gadgets and in their heads.
The reason why most people instinctively oppose imaginary property is that it is not, was not and never will be a widescale mutual agreement between eachother in order to stop fighting and violence, but that it practically exclusively relies on violence (punishments) to stop an entirely non violent act (communication, sharing, copying).
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'
They are using it for advertising and not selling the photo. I would say this is less profit based than say Piratesbay where they are using links to torrents of pirated material to make money from selling ads.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Thanks I didn't know about the model release.
Yea I am sure that most people didn't get it. It hit pretty close to home. I do understand that the GPL is dependent on copyright law. However I am not so sure that you are underestimating the number of people on Slashdot that are lacking even that half of a clue.
Notice that my post is now down to a Troll. Maybe it is a troll but frankly I think it needs to be said.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
This is true. But then again Pirate Bay isn't hosting those torrents themselves AFAIK.
Pirate Bay (like Napster before it) is on the edge of something that makes me fairly uncomfortable.
I don't know what the answer is. This stock photographer does something pretty useful and copyright enables his business model. He benefits directly from copyright. The people that use his photography benefit from what he does or they wouldn't pay him money for the photographs.
I don't think that copyright is inherently evil, but I don't think that words like 'stealing', 'theft' or 'piracy' are appropriate either. It is not a property right.
And having large organizations that themselves create nothing going after individuals for infringement doesn't seem right either. Maybe the answer is to abolish corporate copyright and to make contracts that enable a person to promise not to sell their work to anyone else not enforceable for a term of longer than 5 years or something.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
All three forms if intellectual property are good in theory. The problem with the patent system you've described is that it doesn't match up with the reality of the US patent system. Most specifically, the specificity and lengthy examination process simply aren't true anymore (well, there may be a wait time between patent application and approval, but they aren't well examined.)
The biggest problem with copyright is that the length of the term has increased as technology has decreased the amount of time it takes to publish. That's bass-ackwards. If I can get my work out to everyone in the world in the blink of an eye, the copyright term should be decreased, though not necessarily proportionally.
You can generalize what you've said.
A work only has as much value as people are willing to pay to have a copy. If there was no copyright--no arbitrary scarcity, almost no one would pay for works. Why should they? You'd get those few people who donate because they want to support the artist, but it's unlikely that those would be significant.
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
sorry
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.
Sez the geek:
I'm married to Arlene Gregerson, and expecting Athena Gregerson on March 5th! Sila ay pinaka mahalaga sa akin (they are the most precious to me).
www.cgstock.com
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.
I'm not sure that that's really a convincing argument for artificial controls though. The artificial controls seem to be a way to force people to be uncreative.
There are a lot of ways that one can potentially make money from selling "art". For example, if you're a photographer or a painter you can sell signed prints that are surely worth more than "copied copies".
If you're a game developer there are obviously a ton of people, maybe even the majority, who are going to torrent the game but you can find other things of value to sell to support the game. It's like a rock band selling merchandise at shows.
Of course in a world where copyright law exists it seems unfair to take it away from artists who are used to making a lot more on direct sales. The question becomes is the artificial controls "right". And given the fact that you can take something that, in and of itself, has no economic value and still use it as a tool for driving sales (think of a blog that makes money via AdSense. The words themselves have no economic value but the readers they pull in are gold) does it even still make sense to have those artificial controls ?
You sell the photo.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Never doubted that you did, and appologies if I came across as implying a lack of understanding on your part.
However I am not so sure that you are underestimating the number of people on Slashdot that are lacking even that half of a clue.There have been a couple of recent articles on something directly related to what I'm doing at work - I'd be generous in saying that 1% of the posters really had a clue on what the issues were. As far as GPL relying on copyright, that has been mentioned on
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