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.
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.
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'.
Read Pynchon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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!
That "you can get more money with a lawyer" thing is exactly why the court systems are bogged up with frivolous lawsuits in the first place. It's the new American mentality and I can't stand it. This guy actually had a legitimate reason to sue, actually had the system work for him and give him his due, and all anyone can say is "He's an idiot for not having a lawyer to get him more money."
Just because the company infringing on his work was an asshat about it doesn't mean the photographer has to be. To do so would make him just like the RIAA we all despise. He got way more money than he lost from the infringement as it is; I'm certain stock photo rights do not amount anywhere close to $19,462. He only got that much because he had to go through all the BS to get what he deserved in the first place, and I'm sure he's more than satisfied with the award given. That "get more money and stick 'em with attorney fees" thing sounds downright malicious to me. Isn't it enough that the company was held liable for their use of the photograph in the first place? Nope, we gotta teach those bastards a lesson.
It wouldn't seem like such a good idea to you folks if you got sued, lost, and had to pay the awarded judgment, attorney's fees for yourself AND for the party suing you. Of course, you aren't an infringer of copyright, are you? Of course you're not.
Yeah, that just happened.
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.
www.cgstock.com
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.
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