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

Well done!

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:Well done!

[T-Bone-T]

Just because it is viewable by the public does not make it public domain. You should leave. You clearly don't know anything about this discussion.

Re:Well done!

[Bios_Hakr]

The biggest problem I have with CSI is that they act like they have unlimited funds to solve a crime. Every man-hour spent on a case is billed. Every test they do costs money. At the end of the day, do you really think they'll run a $100k tab to solve the murder of a hooker or bum?

The sad fact is that after a few days, most cases are sent to the bottom of the pile. Not due to lack of evidence, but due to lack of funds.

Re:Well done!

[Architect_sasyr]

And they all take some liberties with the computer side of things!

As someone who trained for a year to become a Lawyer, I find Law and Order to be at least partially gratifying for the way things are put down in the show. It's not entirely accurate but it's not entirely inaccurate as well. The same applies to CSI or Numb3rs... nobody likes to sit by the geeky things so sure it's not all canon, but it puts the right spin on things.

Note I used to date a forensic scientist for the Australian police, watching a show like that with her was like listening to Bill Gates tell me how awesome Linux is ("that's not right!", "we can't do that!!!", "BULLLLLSHIT!" etc.).

My $0.02 AU, Ignore at will

Re:Well done!

[evanbd]

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.

Re:Well done!

[palegray.net]

What are they being punished for? Using a photo that Chris Gregerson willfully posted on the web? They're being punished for using it without his consent. Now, I ran a WHOIS search on your linked domain (biodome.org), and am operating under the assumption that you're Canadian, so we'll run with the idea that you're living in a society that respects copyright for the duration of my reply.

His entire business model is only possible because guys with guns are standing behind him saying you have to pay him if you want to use his stuff. Sure, and I'm totally fine with that. Your country's right to exist hinges on the fact that lots of guys with guns would repel an armed invasion. People are motivated to respect all sorts of laws because guys with guns (the police) will come and get them if they rob a bank, for instance. What's your point?

He's the same kind of vermin that the RIAA and MPAA represent. Not by a long shot. He made a simple case for an instance of copyright infringement, and didn't appear to paint some morbid picture of the issue being worth millions and millions of dollars. Your position on this point is just idiotic.

In fact, he's worse.. taking a photo of a cityscape is hardly a skill. I suck at photography, and so do most people I know. The guy's work obviously had some commercial appeal, because it was considered good enough to be in the advertisement. Let's see your portfolio of cityscapes, buddy. If you happen to be okay with other people using for work for whatever purposes they like without compensating you, that's fine by me. Just don't try and force that view on society as a whole.

Re:Well done!

[Wordplay]

I think the OP's point (and I agree) is that the shows tend to use fairly reasonable devices, they just don't always use them correctly.

Numb3rs' equations are generally appropriate to task, at least insofar as I can follow them. The equipment they use on CSI does by and large exist, even if it's much rarer and considerably less slick than they make out. Law & Order usually references at least halfway appropriate legal doctrine, and House is at least usually (not always, but usually) fact-checked/consulted to the point of distant plausibility, even if they do often represent extremely rare situations or exaggerations as predictable lifesavers.

As for the rest, I'm OK chalking it up to dramatic device. Sometimes I'll see something headslap-worthy (normally something computery, given my usual focus) but I can generally maintain some level of distance from reality. All fiction takes shortcuts.

Re:Well done!

[gmack]

As far as I can tell OP's point was that you can learn from TV. Not good.

Some of the lawyers I know have told me that some of the things they pull on Law and Order would either be disallowed or be grounds for appeal. Following advice you learn on TV is generally a bad idea.

I'm going to state again that I don't mind fiction taking shortcuts. CSI, NCIS and Numb3rs are my favourite shows on TV I enjoy watching them and being entertained.. you just won't see me attempting to treat any of them like an instruction manual.

Re:Well done!

[MikeBabcock]

Numb3rs has been reviewed by one of MIT's publications because it is so factual about its math in many cases. Many of the cases (at least in the first season) were based on actual cases solved using those actual math techniques.

Sure, they dramatize the whole thing, and you don't watch code-monkeys plugging away at computers for hours at a time, but the math itself is quite solid and the data input and extrapolations based on that math are based in reality.

Re:Well done!

[winkydink]

Funny, modulo your editorial comments for the second model, the models look strikingly similar.

Re:Well done!

[Christoph]

Reply from the author:

See the difference? The first one is a simple contract which people willfully enter into because the photographer has something the buyer wants.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but in this case I initially sued in small claims court based on contract law and the "terms of use" of my website (which required a licensing fee for use of the photo). My claim was denied because it necessarily involved copyright, and I was told I had no recourse under contract law -- only copyright law, and only in federal court. I disagree, but there you have it.

And yes, there is a flood of images nowadays, but the skyline in this case is from a vantage point other's haven't duplicated. I provide high-res files 24/7, technical support on image format and resolution, and I shoot on speculation -- I add as much value as I can and rely on copyright as little as possible.

Re:Well done!

[Buran]

You are free to think that, but you won't be laughing if you get your wages garnished or property seized and sold to pay a judgment. I don't agree with every law that is on the books myself, but that doesn't mean I'm not bound to obey those laws. If you think it's such a "load of shit", work to get the law changed and become part of the civic process. If you're a US Citizen, please do: not enough people do anything other than complain as it is.

(I personally support copyright and would go after anyone who infringed my copyright, too, but I'm saying I support the idea of disagreeing and going through channels if you're convinced that the law is wrong. What I don't approve of is how the RIAA and MPAA are making a mockery of what copyright was meant to be).

Re:Well done!

[Buran]

By using a copyrighted photo without permission, especially to make a profit (though that part isn't necessary for infringement), rather than a legally copyable photo (creative commons license, public domain, royalty-free stock photo, etc), the infringers sure made that photo worth something.

If the photo was that worthless, why did they use it? They chose it because it made their ad look good and professional and hopefully therefore would attract paying clients.

Seems like the photo isn't worthless after all. If it were, a different one would have been used instead.

Re:Well done!

[CorSci81]

I'm not really seeing a lot of difference between one and two with the exception that you seem to think that by allowing people to view copyrighted images on the web the photographer has somehow given up all rights to those images. There are plenty of places where you can find free or very low-cost royalty-free images for commercial use. I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect to be paid for your work, especially if someone else is making a profit off of its use.

1. Here are some images, I have watermarked them and I retain copyright on them, so you can look at them AND NOTHING ELSE, I AM THE KING!!! HAHAHAHA, COPYRIGHT GIVES ME SUCH POWER!!!!

Uh, why should you be able to just take any picture off the web and use it for commercial use (i.e. advertising) that makes you money and not pay the artist whose work you're benefiting from? He's not charging you to look at the photos, he's charging you if you're going to use them. This seems a prefectly reasonable use of copyright.

3. If you buy em from me I will not sue you, I PROMISE. ;)

As long as you have a valid license contract, you pay the artist, and you don't violate the terms of the license agreement there would be no grounds to sue.

4. I will now search the web and magazines and newspapers and telephone books and anything else I can think of, daily, so I can find people who have used my images without my permission (I AM KING!!) and then I will threaten them with lawsuits and demand three times the sale price unless they reply to me within two weeks, then it is TEN times the sale price, oh, I'm gunna be so rich!!!

Again, what do you have against artists making money off their work? The photographer in this case didn't exactly go scouring the world for copyright infringement. The defendant in this case used the photo in an inside cover ad on a phonebook in the same city where the photographer lives. It's not as if the website they took it from doesn't make it very clear the image requires a license agreement for use. The damages awarded here are for punitive purposes to prevent people from just using the photos until they get caught and have to only pay the original price.

See the difference? The first one is a simple contract which people willfully enter into because the photographer has something the buyer wants.

Clearly he was offering something they wanted or they wouldn't have used it. There are plenty of places to find free or cheap royalty-free images on the internet that would've avoided this whole issue.

Re:Well done!

[eugene ts wong]

I work in a Canadian department store, and the security manager told us how he could zoom across the entire room, and read the receipt over a customer's shoulder.

I suspect that the camera's and the recording devices are much more powerful than the screen.

Re:Well done!

[Christoph]

That is all you got? What happened to libel, defamation of character, punitive damages, etc. You should have gone with representation.

The last time I used a lawyer, also on an "open-and-shut" case, he lost the case for me (I suspect because he was juggling too many cases). I dedicated myself to this ONE case, lived and breathed it for two years, and came up with better points of law than the side opposing me. I worked harder to make up for my lack of experience.

I'm generally against suing for libel or defamation, as I consider it "feeding the trolls", but I posted below about the possibility of future damages for the other side's fraud in this case.

Re:Well done!

[nebosuke]

I've seen setups like that before, and it's basically a case of the day-to-day monitoring equipment being low resolution while the recording is HD streamed to a SAN or recorded to a high quality film loop (e.g, 16mm), and can later be viewed at full res.

Re:Well done!

[Wuhao]

I don't really watch Numb3rs, but I remember catching an episode where they had a suspect who was fleeing down the crowded interstate, and the detective guy was really frustrated because he thought he lost him, but thankfully Math-man was there and he happened to have a bunch of data on traffic patterns on-hand and right there, then used equations from fluid dynamics (which he cranked out in his head on the fly) to draw a little circle on the map to predict where the guy would wind up, and the detective guy was like "HOLY SHIT THERE'S A PARKING GARAGE THERE" and that's exactly where they found him.

I don't know if that's representative of the series or not, but I have to say that I find "enhance" much more believable.

Re:Well done!

[evanbd]

There's a difference between real time control of the camera optics, and processing after the fact. Normal surveillance cameras (the kind they're always enhancing on TV) have very limited resolution but a wide zoom range. You can zoom in if you can control the camera, but if it wasn't zoomed in at the time the data simply *isn't there* and no amount of photoshop will recover it...

Re:Well done!

[CharlieG]

RE The geeks with guns.

Way back when (say 1979 or 1980) when I was in High School, I took a forensic evidence internship at John Jay college in NYC. Intereesting class with LOTS of stories, but I can still remember one evening in the lab, when it got hot, and most of the guys in the class took off their sports jackets (I had never really thought about WHY everyone wore a sports jacket to class). About 3/4s of the class were police officers furthering their education, and they were all carrying under their jackets. I think there were about 3 of us in the room who were NOT visibly carrying a firearm that night. Me? Because I can't - the other 2, who knows.

So I think you'll find that a lot of the forensic "geeks" out there are/were actual patrol officers at one time

Re:Well done!

[jotok]

Repeat to yourself "It's just a show."
You should really just relax.

Re:Well done!

[Rogerborg]

If you RTFJudgement, you'll note that:

1. Plaintiff dropped the ball and failed to claim profit derived from the images, and to demand an original of the second stolen image. A lawyer would likely have spotted that and earned him a much higher settlement.
2. The judge was minded to award him costs and lawyers fees, but since he represented himself, he didn't get any, i.e. he invested time that he could have spent on his business into this case, for no return.

And given that Defendant is clearly a Russian Bratva whose own employees and associates testified against his character, it'll almost certainly go to collections and at best Plaintiff will see 10% of the award.

Not looking so smart now, is it?

Re:Well done!

[MBGMorden]

Also, with concealed carry permits available in most states, the majority of citizens can carry under a jacket by simply taking a course anyways. Not that they'd be able to take that jacket off (by definition the weapon has to stay concealed unless it's needed in a life/death situation), but that doesn't mean they're not there. With that in mind, I highly doubt they care if their forensic guys carry.

No you didn't.

[davidwr]

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.

Re:No you didn't.

[aeschenkarnos]

"Copyright infringer", not "thief".

Re:No you didn't.

[Courageous]

The Slashdot community has this amusing mix of copyright haters and copyright lovers. See, we're supposed to be all geeks, so if someone takes (pardon me, "duplicates") our stuff, it's not longer "copyright is not theft!" but rather "get a goddamn rope!"

C//

Re:No you didn't.

[corsec67]

The argument is that theft or stealing is "taking something, depriving the affected person of something"

Copyright infringement is "making a duplication"

There is a subtle, but important difference: if something is stolen from you, you don't have it, and the thief does. If something you made gets the copyright infringed upon, you still have your creation.

Re:No you didn't.

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:No you didn't.

[LingNoi]

The argument is that theft or stealing is "taking something, depriving the affected person of something"

Yeah, they deprived him of $19,462..

Re:No you didn't.

[Courageous]

...it is actually piracy...

Arrrr. Shiver me timbers, and walk the plank, matey.

Re:No you didn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No you didn't.

[hairyfeet]

Because they are making a profit on his work without his consent?

In this case the company in question was getting part of their advertising for free.They could have easily chosen a public domain or similarly licensed picture that would have allowed them to do so,but instead chose piracy which cost the artist actual revenue.Most companies want to look different from the crowd,they aren't going to want a picture used in someone else's ad campaign.By using his photo without paying they made it harder to sell the image(by using it in their campaign) and at the same time gave him nothing in compensation. If someone copies an AC/DC song,they suddenly aren't going to lose the ability to sell that song.If they use an AC/DC song in a commercial without paying nobody is going to want that song in THEIR commercial.THAT is the difference.But as always my 02c,YMMV.

Re:No you didn't.

[orasio]

The Slashdot community has this amusing mix of copyright haters and copyright lovers. See, we're supposed to be all geeks, so if someone takes (pardon me, "duplicates") our stuff, it's not longer "copyright is not theft!" but rather "get a goddamn rope!"

C// Copyright infringement is not theft. This is a civil issue. That's why they are supposed to pay, not to go to jail.
In this particular case, copyright is working probably like it was meant to work. Seeing that this is the extreme minority of the copyright consequences, I still think copyright, as it is now, should not exist at all, because its benefits are eclipsed by its drawbacks.

These people should be forced to pay a reasonable amount of money to this guy.

Re:No you didn't.

[Simon Brooke]

The Slashdot community has this amusing mix of copyright haters and copyright lovers. See, we're supposed to be all geeks, so if someone takes (pardon me, "duplicates") our stuff, it's not longer "copyright is not theft!" but rather "get a goddamn rope!"

Most of the older (six digits or fewer) users of Slashdot are software people, and, as such, we make our reputation and most of us our living from copyrighted software. So we know exactly what copyright means. When you steal my bike, that's theft. When you copy my code against the terms of the license I grant you, that's copyright infringement. I'll come after you if you do either of them, but I know what the difference is.

Copyright infringement is not theft.

Re:No you didn't.

[Simon Brooke]

But saying this is copyright infringement is misleading when it is actually piracy.

Piracy is seizing a ship on the high seas, outside territorial waters. What ship was seized, and where is it now? If you cannot tell me what ship was seized, it was copyright infringement, not piracy.

Re:No you didn't.

[Finn61]

If people cannot make money from their creative work, then they will find another job. Because if it's no longer possible to make a zillion bucks from their creative work, they are suddenly no longer keen to pursue their so called 'art'. I know people who make very little money from their art but they continue creating it anyway. It sounds crazy but they claim to enjoy and be passionate about what they do in their spare time! F'

Re:No you didn't.

[cduffy]

Art existed long before copyright did -- but was paid for by a sponsoring patron.

I am absolutely not a copyright abolitionist (though I do think terms should be reduced to something more reasonable -- scale of 20 years or so) -- but to argue in the direction that no art would be created without copyright is fallacious. Less art, certainly... but that's a price some people may be willing to pay.

Re:No you didn't.

[Kreigaffe]

You should probably amend that to five digits, I've got six and I'm just a huge nerd that likes to yell loudly at people and be generally argumentative.

For example.. perhaps this WAS a case of theft. We're short of details -- it's entirely possible that the picture used was never placed anywhere publicly, and the company may have sent in ninjas in the night to steal it.. and stealing's theft. Yes it is.

Re:No you didn't.

[Wooky_linuxer]

With a strong emphasis on "reasonable". Why was he awarded only about US$20k when RIAA asks for millions per song? Why didn't the FBI snoop on the publication (and all other publications) to cohibit the heinous offense of copyright infringement in printed media? All this make me sick. Corporations are allowed to rewrite the law, do away with far use, extend copyright and ask for immoral compensation - and yet they'd like all these laws were not applied when they are in the receiving end of the stick. In any case, I can see why some people may label this particular case as theft. Not only they used his work without his consent, but they also claimed it wasn't his, and that they in fact had the right to use instead of the original creator - via a fake document. So, I'd say in this case, they were stealing from him; had the judge sided with the other side he would be effectually unable to use his work anymore, and that might be equal to theft. But before all the "piracy is theft" crowd begin to cheer, I have never seen our mates at TPB claiming they own or produced any of the works their torrents lead to.

Re:No you didn't.

[arbitraryaardvark]

"Copyright infringer", not "thief".
  The forged sales agreement, and the bogus defamation suit, takes it out of being just copyright infringement and more something else. Theft is probably the right label for that something else.
$20K ain't chicken feed for our hero, but to the bank it is cheaper to lose the occasional lawsuit than to do business honorably.
Our hero should probably follow up with various banking regulatory agencies (private or public) to make this hurt more.

Re:No you didn't.

[RazzleDazzle]

Who do I trust? A typical Slashdot user (even one modded up for some reason) or dictionary.com?

The below is taken from dictionary.com

piracy /parsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pahy-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun, plural -cies.
1. practice of a pirate; robbery or illegal violence at sea.
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
3. Also called stream capture. Geology. diversion of the upper part of one stream by the headward growth of another.

I guess I will go with FSM. So far he has not let me down on the topic of pirates and global warming.

Re:No you didn't.

[julesh]

Art existed long before copyright did -- but was paid for by a sponsoring patron.

The patronage system worked pretty well in aristocratic rennaisance Europe, due to the reasonably large number of incredibly wealthy families whose members frequently had nothing else to do with their time, the important work of managing their estates having been contracted out to people trained for the job.

Even then, though, it was harder for middle-tier artists to make a living than it is now. There is today a huge difference in the volume of new work published compared to then, and most of this is due to the commercialisation of art.

I'm not saying patronage is useless, but I am saying it's unlikely to work as well now as it did at the time, and it doesn't promote the wide diversity of art that we're used to these days.

Re:No you didn't.

[Just Some Guy]

Piracy is seizing a ship on the high seas, outside territorial waters.

Thus spake Wikipedia:

The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.

I've gone along with the party line of "unauthorized copying != piracy" for years, but it looks like we're in the wrong on this one.

Re:No you didn't.

[paeanblack]

Because they are making a profit on his work without his consent?

That argument is bogus. We do not compensate people simply because we make a profit off of their work in other areas, so why is photography special? When McDonalds spends two years and a chunk of cash to research the ideal location for a new franchise, Burger King doesn't pay them for that hard work when they open up next door. If the gas station next door gets more sales from the increased traffic, they don't pay the restaurants.

There are many good reasons for having copyrights, but none of them are about preventing people from profiting off the work of others without consent or compensation. Did the photographer in the article track down the architects and developers of those buildings in the image and compensate them? Of course not; he took a photo and sold it, profiting off their hard work without consent. Is there anything morally, ethically, or legally wrong with doing so? Not at all.

Copyrights are good. It's just your argument that is bad.

Re:No you didn't.

[jotok]

I don't think copyright necessitates a middleman. Middlemen are supposed to handle everything ancillary to the production of content...distribution, advertising, arranging access, setting up live performances, etc. They are useful. Yes, with the internet enabling cheap distribution and so forth, you can get away with charging $1 for an album instead of $10--the artist makes the same and consumers are happy. I don't see what any of that has to do with copyright, which basically says "I wrote and produced this album and that authorizes me to charge $1 for it--and prevents ANYONE ELSE from charging for it or distributing it for free."

The fact that artists regularly get hosed in this industry is still not, to me, a valid defense of not paying for content you want to hear. There are tons of indie bands that I support by buying their $5 album from their websites, and there is no label involved. I don't see why anyone who wouldn't gank a $5 promo CD at a show would download the artist's music without paying for it; the idea that "Well, in the one case, you STOLE a CD!" is nonsensical.

Good!

[thatskinnyguy]

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.

Re:Good!

[Fat Casper]

Guy Fawkes, you philistine!

The photographer represented himself, so he didn't pay any lawyers.

The defendants took the money that they saved by not paying the photographer in the first place and spent it on lawyers. Then they got to pay the photographer anyway. I love it when business plans have to take regular people into account.

Picture

[cdrdude]

Could you post which picture it was? Preferably with any watermarks removed, and in the highest resolution you have, just for...informational purposes ;-)

Re:Picture

[palegray.net]

Here's the photo, in full resolution. Thanks for asking!

Re:Picture

[PMBjornerud]

Even though you were modded funny, I resized my browser window to 3x3 pixels and donned safety goggles before clicking.

$19,462

[palegray.net]

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!!!

Re:$19,462

[smack.addict]

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

Re:$19,462

[The Analog Kid]

b) Stuck the defendants with attorney's fees

He tried sticking the defendant with attorney fees, but it was denied on the bases that he was representing himself.

Re:$19,462

[ckedge]

Is his time not worth anything? I mean, sure, it's probably not worth $300/hr, but *if* he'd accurately tracked how much of his time was spent on it, couldn't he have gotten *something* for all the personal time he had to throw into it? Has that ever been done?

Re:$19,462

[sixteenbitsamurai]

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.

Re:$19,462

[Anonymous Coward]

No, his time isn't worth anything extra. His award of damages already covers that time spent.

Attorney's fees are for attorneys. They reimburse for out-of-pocket expenses, not for opportunity cost. That, again, is part of the award of damages. He chose to pursue this, calculating that his award would make it worth his time. He chose not to use attorneys, calculating that he'd fare better without those bills.

He was right on the former, but it turns out he was wrong on the latter. But he never bore the risk of gargantuan legal bills, so he traded the highest possible returns for that reduced risk.

The copyright holder wins

[QuantumG]

umm, what a great big surprise. Anyone would think the copyright system was designed to grossly bias the copyright owner or something.

Re:The copyright holder wins

[palegray.net]

Quoting the summary:

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. The story here is that the defendant tried to pull some hard-core legalistic intimidation bullshit in response to the original lawsuit, and the plaintiff still stood his ground and pushed forward.

Re:The copyright holder wins

[caitsith01]

The story here is that the defendant tried to pull some hard-core legalistic intimidation bullshit in response to the original lawsuit, and the plaintiff still stood his ground and pushed forward.

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.

Not disagreeing that this is a good outcome, or with the bearded geek hippies per se. Just sayin'.

Re:The copyright holder wins

[gmack]

If said "bearded geek hippie" infringed copyright to push his business I would hope most slashdotters would applaud his being thrown to the wolves.. I certainly would.

Re:The copyright holder wins

[Dachannien]

Agreed, although you definitely understated the underhandedness of the loser in this case. Anybody who has a problem with this story should take a few moments to read the ruling. The devil here is in the details.

Someone used your artistic work without paying you

[arse maker]

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.

Grab their profits too?

[nacturation]

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.

Re:Grab their profits too?

[Dachannien]

After reading your disclaimer, I think I may be experiencing severe side effects such as headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and death. Must be reacting with my MAOI inhibitors or something.

Re:Grab their profits too?

[B3ryllium]

Now that you've won spectacularly, is it possible to pursue those damages?

A victory is a victory. No need to be extreme.

(If only corporations and governments would follow that mentality ...)

Re:Grab their profits too?

[Christoph]

NO. The case is over and the plaintiff won. He forfeited his claim for "derived profits" damages, possibly amounting to many thousands of dollars. In other words, he committed legal malpractice against himself. The guy should have looked harder for a lawyer willing to take the case, since attorney fees would have also been awarded in addition to the extra damages.

FYI: I researched claims for infringer's profits in cases where a photo was used in an advertisement. I found that precedent requires the Plaintiff produce actual customers who testify the photo caused them (at least in part) to become customers (you can then get a small percentage of the infringer's profits). I thought that might incur more investigation and deposition costs than it was worth, and was otherwise busy trying to uncover the other side's fraud.

Slow News Day?

[logicnazi]

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?

Re:Slow News Day?

[syousef]

This seems like a pretty boring and routine infringement case. I'm glad the photographer won his case but why is it on slashdot?

Because he wants to gloat, and because slashdot loves a david geek vs goliath megacorp fairytale ending.

- Most people who represent themselves end up in a mess because they don't know or understand procedure or the relevant case law.
- Most of the time, large companies get away with this sort of behaviour.

Re:so this is a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

(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).

Re:so this is a good thing?

[wasabii]

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.

Re:Someone used your artistic work without paying

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:so this is a good thing?

[wvmarle]

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.
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.

Truth is an absolute defense to libel

[Animats]

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.

You're Very Lucky, and Don't Try That Again

[Bruce Perens]

You are extremely lucky that you had a judge who wanted to help you. It's an old truism that anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client, and you were a mega big - but lucky - fool this time. You had some sort of false belief that Justice - something that is not often seen in a court room - would prevail, and you probably still do. The worst part about this is that you are probably going to convince some other poor slob to try this, and he'll lose his home, his car, his bank accounts, and his freedom.

I'm not a lawyer. I know when to use one.

Bruce

Re:You're Very Lucky, and Don't Try That Again

[Christoph]

Reply from the author:

You are extremely lucky that you had a judge who wanted to help you...you were a mega big - but lucky - fool this time

The judge absolutely did NOT help me, and I didn't have the money for an attorney (they sued me for defamation first, so I had no choice but to litigate).

I may have been lucky, but I prevailed because I worked hard for two years and persisted. I worked much harder that the other side, and knew more about this area of law than their attorneys.

...you are probably going to convince some other poor slob to try this...

I will agree with you I should issue a disclaimer "Don't try this yourself". There are plenty of pro-se litigants who don't know what they are doing, a few who do, and I suspect that won't change.

Re:You're Very Lucky, and Don't Try That Again

[Anonymous Coward]

A bluff is something someone does when they do not possess the cards. He possessed the cards. Thus, no bluff.

Re:You're Very Lucky, and Don't Try That Again

[the grace of R'hllor]

It was a legitimate demand. They broke copyright law, but he didn't want to litigate because that takes time and money away from everyone except lawyers, and best avoided in civilized society. They responded by starting litigation against *him*, on false grounds.

Also, if it's a legitimate demand that you're willing and able to back up with (legal) force, it's not a bluff. Likewise, for example, if the police say "Put your hands up or we will shoot you", that's not a bluff, and keeping your hands lowered isn't "calling" anything.

Re:You're Very Lucky, and Don't Try That Again

[Christoph]

Reply from the author:

So, after TWO YEARS, was this really all worth it, or did you just sort of get dragged through it once they launched the defamation lawsuit? I mean, how many hours did you spend, are you actually seeing any of that judgment money? What impact has this had on your life?

The alternative was to take down the webpage they complained about and forgo compensation for their commercial use of my photography. If they could do this to me, as corrupt and wrong as they were, it could happen to me again, and to anyone else. I would, in a very real way, be giving up on my right to publish the truth online, and be compensated for my work when used commercially by others.

I believed I had to stand up against that. Whether or not it was worth it perhaps depends on the value you place on these issues, but I value them pretty highly and so, yes, it was worth it to me.

It's impacted my life in that I know a lot more about the law. There was an issue of implied threats against me, so I've been in close touch with my local police (the station is a block from me). It's been a huge stress, but I don't regret it. As for collection, I am optimistic.

THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sometimes I struggle understanding double standards on /.

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

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

[seanadams.com]

Sometimes I struggle understanding double standards on /.

There is more than one person posting here.

So ripping off a stock photo is Bad and this guy did good by pushing for his rights and winning.

Yes. And more importantly, without a lawyer. IMHO that alone makes it a respectable achievement, regardless of how I might feel about this particular law.

But pirating copyright music via p2p etc is OK because nobody got hurt right.

Not the same thing. This company used his images for profit. What would have been analogous to file sharing might be if the defendant had photocopied the image, put it on his wall for his own personal enjoyment, and given some copies to friends for the same purpose.

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.

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

[Gideon Fubar]

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.

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

[moderatorrater]

There is more than one person posting here. I don't know about you, but I'm just a CmdrTaco shell account that posts random shit from Wikipedia. I thought everyone else was, too, and we were all just trying to make it look like we're on a successful site so that CmdrTaco can earn lots and lots of money from an evil corporate overlord while being able to DOS people and not get blamed/prosecuted.

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

[a whoabot]

I infringe your copyright for commercial gain and I'm morally corrupt. You infringe my copyright for non-commercial gain and you're morally clean. I disagree. It sounds like both cases are ones of moral corruption because in both someone is trying to get something for nothing from the work of another, whether that something is commercial or not.

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

[timmarhy]

what are you brain dead? RTFA, he approched them about it and they produced a fraudulent reciept claiming ownership of his work.

do you claim to own the rights to your briteny spears mp3 collection?

they didn't just rip off his work, they claimed to own the copyright on it as well. your missing the point we make time and time on here again as well - RIAA aren't content creators like this guy, they are business thieves that take the majority of the artists cut and sue their fans.

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

[_Sprocket_]

The First Law of 'Bots: "do not talk about being a bot."

(the other two laws shouldn't even be referred to much less talked about)

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

[torkus]

You fail to take into account one critical difference between the MAFIAA and this situation:

The offending company in this case used the copyrighted material FOR PROFIT. For the direct financial benefit of their company. And they WILLFULLY removed the copyright and digital watermak. Then the forged a notarized document and lied about it under oath.

If you did soemthing similar with your MP3 collection I'd almost be tempted to help the mafiaa track you ass down. Similies and comparisons almost always fall short on /. - if you want to try to make it more accurate...

It would be like downloading every metallica song, making a compilation CD and removing the copyright, attributing the music to another band and then using it as a promotional give-away as part of an advertizing campaign for your company. If you do that, then yes. You should suffer court appointed damages. Note this judge awarded about 20,000 USD. That, i feel is appropriate given the blatant copyright violation and commercial use. What I don't think is appropriate is 150,000 USD for downloading a song of P2P for solely personal use that the MAFIAA demand. Note they don't go for 'up to' 150k, they demand EXACTLY 150K.

So comments about how useless or simple or stupid or ugly his photos are ... mean nothing. If it was so easily duplicatable then they simple should have taken their own picture for free and been done with it. Based on the fact that they didn't do that, the photo must have some value - even if it's the value of someone being too lazy to climb a few flights of stairs and take a picture.

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

[iminplaya]

Read it again. I'm talking about claiming the work of somebody else as your own. It doesn't even matter if it's for commercial gain or not. I shouldn't have included that bit in my original post. I repeat. If copyright was limited to stopping or reducing plagiarism, I would be all for it. Nobody has a right to control distribution.

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

[X0563511]

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.

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

[ortholattice]

I fail to see the difference. What's so special about the money part? Isn't personal enjoyment a sort of profit? What if I take the picture, turn it into desktop wallpaper, and post it on my web site to drive up hits?
--
This sentence is false.

I had a perfect rebuttal of your point, but your sig overflowed my logic buffer. Congrats, you win by default.

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

[ortholattice]

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.

What part of "copy" in "copyright" do you not understand? There is all the difference in the world between a copy of a file and a hyperlink. At least Sweden has had the common sense to understand that, although who knows when they'll buckle to the *AAs.

OTOH you're in good company with the plaintiffs in the 2600 DeCSS case, which I still find to be one of the most disappointing court decisions of modern times. "In particular the Second Circuit ruled that linking on the Internet...could be restrained in ways that might not be constitutional for traditional media" which is why it was perfectly fine for the NYT to print the hyperlink (which it did). So if thepiratebay printed a monthly magazine of torrent hyperlinks, that apparently would be legal even in the U.S. And possibly even if they displayed the links on their website with no "HREF" around them - would that make you happier? Or are you for censorship of non-copyrighted information as well?

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

[nbert]

Isn't personal enjoyment a sort of profit?

From my perspective you are mixing up consumption and production of goods here. You can use profit for your personal enjoyment (or you can steal something for it). But could you watch a movie and trade the enjoyment you had for something else afterwards? I don't think so.

A way to look at it is the loss caused: If you watch a movie you didn't pay for you are causing a theoretical loss in the range of an overnight rental and the full DVD price. If you use scenes from said movie for promoting your company you are in a totally different price range. You are making very real profit (in money) by using these scenes. Therefore the copyright owner should expect a fair share from it.

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

Do you have ads on your website? If that's not the case your are only driving up your bandwith cost ;)

But in all seriousness: Many copyright owners grant licenses for non commercial purposes. I always ask kindly before I use anything from other websites.

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

[Nazlfrag]

It's nice to see that some dude pocketed $20,000 because he took a picture of a public building that was of professional quality and looked good enough to be used in commercial advertising and sued someone. There, fixed. If they had simply paid for them in the first place they would have cost substantially less. Indeed, he deserved every penny.

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

[Alzheimers]

This is either the funniest or the saddest things I've ever read.

Just so the less technically savvy people who don't get the joke don't get confused: a compressed image file can be opened as many times as you'd like without losing any quality. It's only when editing and recompressing the image do you take the detail hit.

So don't be afraid to run those slideshows of your kids on your desktop. Go ahead and print out as many copies as you like. As long as you're not doing touchup work after every iteration, you're cool.

Re:so this is a good thing?

[Dachannien]

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.

Reply from author

[Christoph]

Someone used your artistic work without paying you...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.

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.

Re:Reply from author

[mr_matticus]

Certainly their litigation tactics are reprehensible at best and they've committed blunder after blunder (and there's no one who can really say they're not corrupt), but for the most part, the people they go after aren't people who shared an album, or downloaded a movie once. Their usual target is someone sharing thousands or tens of thousands of songs with quite a bit of traffic going in and out. Yeah, we hear a lot more about the little kids and grandmas who get sued, but they make for a better story than someone with 24,000 songs and tens of thousands of downloads.

It's pretty hard to say with a straight face that most of these defendants are innocently sharing a few songs with a few friends or that it doesn't have any commercial impact.

It may be hard to believe, but that distinction you personally make is also one made in legal circles. It's not generally worthwhile to "go after your customers" as it is said here, and they don't. They throw a few random ones in for whatever reason (probably just to keep people in line, like speeding enforcement), but that's the exception, not the rule. It's far more nuanced than lots of people here would ever admit, because it lessens their compelling tales. The opponents are just as greedy as the "big media" they despise. 'Fair' is somewhere in the middle, but everyone's life is more complicated because of the vocal, intolerant few who don't like the business model but somehow can't do without these things they claim have no value.

Re:so this is a good thing?

[Omnifarious]

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).

Bullshit.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Watermark removed?

[Kludge]

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.

Re:Watermark removed?

[Christoph]

By my reading, the watermark was originally towards the bottom of the image, and they just cropped it out.
The new watermarks seem to show he's learned his lesson.

Yes, that is exactly what happened. I learned other lessons, many of which I will probably not share outside my family or I will seem cynical. I believe the verdict was just in this case, and I'm not cynical.

Photographers and IP

[a_nonamiss]

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?

Re:Photographers and IP

[Eskarel]

To answer your question, the difference is who holds the copyright.

One school of thought is that if you hire a photographer to take photos of something that it's an instance of work for hire, which means that the copyright, and therefor the negatives, belong to you(as the person doing the hiring). In this instance you can take the negatives and get as many copies of them made in whatever fashion you like, and do anything you like with them, including sell them to a company for advertising purposes.

This is a relatively sensible view, and you'll find that when most photographers get other photographers to do work for them that this is the kind of deal they insist on getting.

The counter argument you get from photographers(and the idea which many of them base their business model around) is that because what they do is "art", that it cannot be work for hire, and therefor they own the copyright and the only way for you to get reproductions of the work is from them. They tend to charge a rather ridiculous fee for the reproductions(though usually a lower one for the actual photography), and the really sneaky ones won't charge you anything at all since then it's definitely not work for hire.

As a business model it doesn't really work anymore, because most people hold the idea that photographs they've paid someone to take of them and their kids should belong to them, and therefor have absolutely no problems copying them without the consent of the theoretical copy right holder. Add to that the idea of better scanners and it's pretty much a non viable startup which only works because most people are too cheap to pay up front for a photographer who is willing to price themsslves at a rate which makes work for hire profitable.

Regardless however this argument doesn't apply to the case in question as the plaintiff most definitely was not involved in work for hire as he didn't take the photograph at the defendent's request.

Re:Photographers and IP

[Clovert Agent]

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.

Working in print media, I can safely tell you that I've never worked with photographers like this. All commissioned photography is taken under contracts that include all the necessary copyright permissions (we usually but exclusively use "all rights" contracts because we publish online and in print, and online is global) and always, without exception, result in us getting the processed image files in suitable digital form.

Not RAW files though, which you might think you want but you probably don't really. Part of what I expect a photographer to do for me is correct the RAW image and give me a high res JPG or TIFF. He knows better than my production dept what colour correction needs to be done - they can tweak it later but the initial work on the RAW file is part of what I'm paying the photographer for.

So maybe you need to look up some freelance photographers in your area who work with print media and understand what's what. Expect to pay a lot more than you might think - a good photographer, complete with preproduction work and all rights handed over, is probably orders of magnitude more expensive than the family studio on the corner whose business is the low-margin, high volume opposite.

Re:Photographers and IP

[nacturation]

Keep in mind that giving you the RAW file means that you could make infinite copies of the photograph with no additional cost going to the photographer. And a photographer cannot give concerts to recoup his losses. Sorry if my sarcasm meter is off, but losses? If I pay a photographer $2500 for four hours of time, let's say that's an hour of setup, an hour of takedown, and two hours of shooting. Let's say for the hell of it that the setup/takedown time is worth $250 an hour. So that's $500 total. That prices the actual photography work at $1000 an hour, which should more than cover the person's time, equipment cost, domain knowledge, etc. Where are the losses that need to be recouped?

Re:so this is a good thing?

[theMerovingian]

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.

"Must turn over all email..."

[Thornae]

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.

What?????

[www.sorehands.com]

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?

laughable

[JustNiz]

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.

Re:laughable

[Christoph]

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 19 grand was only for the copyright claims. A claim for the other party's forged evidence would require a separate cause of action (lawsuit), such as for malicious prosecution. That is still a possibility, especially now that a judge ruled they engaged in this misconduct. Damages for that claim would presumably be more.

Dangerous ruling about watermarks

[l2718]

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.

Re:so this is a good thing?

[Petrushka]

The "evil corporation" was a one man outfit.. Chris didn't mention that of course.

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.

Now try actually collecting.

[Chas]

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.

Re:Now try actually collecting.

[QuasiEvil]

Back when I used to work at a repo company in college (did IT stuff, but would occasionally go along on collection trips just for fun), I learned a little secret about collecting judgments against companies of any reasonable size. Short version: If they don't pay, get a court order that gives you the right to go in and sieze property equal to the value of what they owe. Call then sheriff, have him or one of his officers accompany to serve the order. Once appropriately served, head straight for the telecom gear. I guarantee as you're pulling out the PBX, somebody will show up with a check for the amount owed - it's damn hard to do any business without a phone switch!

Re:so this is a good thing?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Mod up, please

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Mod up, please

[AhBeeDoi]

A few years ago, I played a round of golf with a couple of lawyers who explained to me that getting judgments was easy. The hard part is collecting on them. The photographer may have won a $19K judgment but that doesn't mean he'll be getting it, especially from a company that would rather steal/violate copyright his image than pay for it.

Re:Mod up, please

[Lumpy]

for $19K I sell the debt to a debt collector for $10K they will houd the companies ass hard and start trashing their credit record to get that $9K.

I do this all the time, The strange part is large companies are bigger deadbeats than people. There are lots of Collection agencies more than happy to get 40-50% of the original bill. works great and companies usually start responding faster as they are bigger than you are.

Perhaps some Google-fu is in order...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Rock and Hard Place

[Bruce Perens]

Two and a half years for the award he got is a Pyrrhic victory. So, the truth is, there aint no justice. And yes, that's depressing.

Bruce

Actually, it was $4,462

[NotQuiteReal]

Plaintiff claims the fair market value for all uses of his Skyline photo by Defendants is $4,462.

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.

Re:Actually, it was $4,462

[Original Replica]

The fact that they removed the watermark and made a fake contract shows that there was serious dishonest intent here. Putting thought, planning, and effort into a crime makes it a more serious offense. Yes it is a civil not criminal case, but I think the punitive damages were far too lenient in light of the bald faced deception and brazen counter suit on top of the original violation of the copyright. The judge should have broken them. At 20k it's just the cost of doing business.

As defined by law, a crime includes both the act, or actus rea, and the intent to commit the act, or mens rea. Criminal intent involves an intellectual apprehension of factual elements of the act or acts commanded or enjoined by the law. It is usually inferred from the apparently voluntary commission of an overt act.

Re:Actually, it was $4,462

[absoluteflatness]

plus another $10,000 in punitive damages, "just because the judge said so". Actually the $10,000 was statutory damages, meaning that the amount was prescribed by law, in this case for "willful infringement."

No punitive damages were awarded in this case, and it is a relatively rare occasion that they are ever awarded.

You read all the details, but perhaps a shade too quickly...

Re:Actually, it was $4,462

[digitig]

The judge should have broken them. At 20k it's just the cost of doing business. If you read the article, it seems that the judge couldn't do that. The plaintiff could have sued for the profits derived from the infringement, and originally did, but subsequently dropped that part of the claim. Pity, but I guess they had enough on their plate.

Re:Just $19K?

[Christoph]

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?

I filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Market Enforcement Division, over this exact issue (my case no. is MO2603479). That was two years ago. I sent follow-up emails and left phone messages, and sent them this verdict recently. They have yet to reply, and unfortunately it appears they actually gave the other party in this suit a NEW mortgage originator's license under a new corporate name. I don't know what's going on over there.

Re:Rock and Hard Place

[Christoph]

Two and a half years for the award he got is a Pyrrhic victory. So, the truth is, there aint no justice. And yes, that's depressing.

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.

Re:Are you a moron?

[simong]

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.

The legal system isn't broken

[mosb1000]

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.

Because the judge said so, RTFJ

[keineobachtubersie]

"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.

Re:What happens next?

[nomadic]

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?

Basically. Well, legally it's the sheriff who traditionally enforces judgments, not the bailiff, and it's a writ of garnishment rather than an order, but other than that what you said is basically right.