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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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
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.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
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.
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.
www.cgstock.com
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.
www.cgstock.com
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.
www.cgstock.com
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.
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.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...