Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bogus Takedown Notice Lands $150k Settlement In Australian Court

Posted by timothy on from the let-the-dingos-eat-her dept.

Fluffeh writes "Richard Bell, an Australian Film Maker, on a fellowship in New York, produced and directed approximately 18 hours of raw footage for a film with the help of an assistant called Tanya Steele and paid her for these services. Ms Steele, through her American lawyers, sent letters to Mr Bell and his agent claiming that she owned the copyright in the footage and demanding that the trailer be removed from the Internet. She also caused the Vimeo website to remove the trailer. In response, Bell went to the (Australian) courts, which declared him the owner of the copyright in the film, and deemed Steele's threats "unjustifiable". Bell then asked for damages. These were granted in the latest judgment because Bell had lost the opportunity to sell some of his works, which typically cost tens of thousands of dollars, as a result of Steels' threats. The Australian judge awarded over $150,000 in damages plus another $23,000 costs against her."

37 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. refreshing! by v1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now THAT is how copyright law is supposed to work! So refreshing to see it actually properly applied.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:refreshing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually what's more refreshing is that for a change, a foreign court was granted jurisdiction in America, rather than the other way around. And no-one got to be deported in the process!

    2. Re:refreshing! by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      Not to worry, the chick can turn around, sell 'her' copyright to a studio here in the States, then that studio will take the guy to court and bankrupt his great great grandkids.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:refreshing! by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, they rule against some random person with no money or political influence, but not the mega-corporations that are doing the REAL damage. So brave of them...

    4. Re:refreshing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's worth noting that if there were no copyright law then Tanya Steele wouldn't have been able to cause damage in the first place.

      If a person has a gun and goes around shooting people for fun and, one day, is shot by one of their targets, then it's natural to feel a low-level sense of justice but I wouldn't go around saying "Now that is how guns are supposed to work".

    5. Re:refreshing! by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Not to worry, the chick can turn around, sell 'her' copyright to a studio here in the States, then that studio will take the guy to court and bankrupt his great great grandkids.

      Following this judgment, she has nothing that she owns to sell. I bet the studios will stay quite far from her.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:refreshing! by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      Except that the judgement was in Australia, and she can still press 'her' copyright claims here in the US.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    7. Re:refreshing! by starworks5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually its not!

      His 'evidence' consisted of sworn statements of his buddies, and the presumption that he would have sold more paintings. Furthermore the Australian court case said that she hadn't pursued it in court, however she actually filed a lawsuit in NYC, who knows if she or he actually served each other however.

    8. Re:refreshing! by starworks5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect he is a complete liar
      here are the paintings he claims are up to $60,000 a piece (what a joke)
      http://www.kooriweb.org/bell/art.html
      http://www.milanigallery.com.au/artwork/her-thous-shalt-not
      I've had way better pieces custom made (oil on canvas portraits) for a fraction of the price
      here are his real market prices
      http://www.findartinfo.com/search/listprices.asp?keyword=113297
      And then he claims in one website to have spent $80k on legal services, the court found he only spent $23k on lawyer fees at a rate of $500 /hr

    9. Re:refreshing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Think you will find there is a whole raft of Copyright treaties between Australia and the US. She can certainly take further legal Action, but the Australian court decision will be in effect for both countries.

    10. Re:refreshing! by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      well.. tell that to youtube. it's still blocking blackfellas guide to nyc.

      you see, you don't actually need to own the copyright to sell the copyright! all you have to do is convince the buyer that you have the copyright. and you can takedown just about anything by just saying you have copyright.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:refreshing! by hairyfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      here are the paintings he claims are up to $60,000 a piece (what a joke) http://www.kooriweb.org/bell/art.html http://www.milanigallery.com.au/artwork/her-thous-shalt-not I've had way better pieces custom made (oil on canvas portraits) for a fraction of the price

      Since when has art been valued with any sort of logic? I can take you to any gallery in any country and show plenty of art that "isn't worth it".

    12. Re:refreshing! by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, our version of the MPAA and RIAA got their asses handed to them when they tried to claim one of the local ISPs was responsible for infringement by its users. There have been political rumblings to try and change that situation, but nothing much has come of it. For all that we get a few loony ideas out of the government every once in a while(like the filter which has sort of disappeared into the ether since its grand architect got shafted and the balance of power in the senate stopped relying on the religious right for a vote) the courts are actually pretty good over here.

      Oddly enough, for a country with no official bill of rights or even codified freedom of speech, we have a lot more freedom down here than the US does. Our government is slightly more repressive, but they also keep our corporations much more in line so we don't have the oligarchy the US has and which the bill of rights doesn't protect you from. On balance folks have more rights here, even if none of them are written down.

    13. Re:refreshing! by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, we're talking about the US here. You know, the country that says 'All your IP is belong to us'?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    14. Re:refreshing! by Pigeon451 · · Score: 2

      What a ridiculous statement. Copyright law in some form is required. Otherwise people could go sell other peoples pictures, movies and music without ever paying a cent to make it, with no compensation to the original artists.

      Only on slashdot would this get modded up...

    15. Re:refreshing! by del_diablo · · Score: 2

      Copyright laws was invented to deal with plagiarism, in a age where just going to the next town was a extremely horrible and long adventure. If somebody claimed to be the author of your book, and sold it, he could also claim all the honour, awards, and money.
      Copyright laws is still needed to deal with this, but the 1800's copyright laws are overengineered for a problem it is no longer adressing.

  2. Just goes to show by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't file bogus lawsuits unless you're a big corporation suing somebody too poor to sue back.

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  3. Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? by thomasinx · · Score: 5, Informative

    A settlement involves an agreement between two parties. Nothing of the sort happened here. The Australian court said this woman had to pay the money. Thats a "judgment". Its quite irritating that immediately after this verdict, the relisted trailer on YouTube got blocked by the same person again...

    1. Re:Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were Mr. Bell, at $150,000/pop, I would let her block my YouTube account as many times as she wanted.

    2. Re:Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      This is why it's important that intermediaries such as YouTube honor a proper DMCA Counter notice, and reinstate the material until a court orders otherwise.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    3. Re:Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      Right, that judge will take 2 seconds to smell out Bell as someone whose abusing the system

      I am confused, isn't it Steel that abused the system, and Bell was the victim?

    4. Re:Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? by russotto · · Score: 2

      DMCA is worse than useless. Mr. Bell would have to accept US jurisdiction (the Australian judgement is useless)... and the video would remain down for the duration of the case.

    5. Re:Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? by sl149q · · Score: 3, Interesting

      DMCA takedowns should have a built-in cost to the issuer. Issue a cheque for $X when the notice is sent. $X is returned if they subsequently prove the copyright is valid.

      $X does not have to be very large (even a couple hundred dollars) as its just meant to defray the costs of processing the takedown iff it was not valid. And to make massive numbers of invalid notices costs something (currently the only cost is their lawyer to draft and issue them.)

    6. Re:Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      So, your solution is to keep the bad law we have AND have it implemented poorly as well?

      I have no idea what you're arguing for/against. I simply pointed out that under DMCA, it's important that intermediaries honor all proper counter notice claims by reinstating the material until a court rules otherwise.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  4. Anti-vaxxers abusing DCMA takedown process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While we're at it....

    Noted woo-woo and anti-vaccination crank, Meryl Dorey of the AVN (Australian Anti-Vaccination Network), uses blizzards of fake DCMA takedown notices to harass and annoy people criticising her harmful propaganda, and gets away with it, ostensibly because despite being American, she's out of reach of the US courts, because she lives in Australia.

    Does this mean that karma will catch up with this idiot too?

    1. Re:Anti-vaxxers abusing DCMA takedown process by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does this mean that karma will catch up with this idiot too?

      Not necessarily. In your case, her victims would have to prove that they lost money as a result. Did they?

      In this case of Steele vs. Bell, I know that everyone is making light of the amount of money he won, but this guy Bell really didn't have any problem proving that he was already making $150,000 selling his paintings in just a few of months, so the amount he was awarded is probably just a very conservative estimate of what he could have earned if she had not prevented him from appearing at an art show, and blocked the online promotion of his movie showcasing his story.

  5. But wait, there's more... by e9th · · Score: 2

    One of the comments to the Techdirt FA links to a lawsuit Steele filed against Bell in US Federal Court last December. Unfortunately, it costs money to get much in the way of details, but apparently it hasn't been resolved yet.

    1. Re:But wait, there's more... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
      One thing I'm wondering is...

      As Bell is Australian, did he have the right to operate a business in the US on his visa? This is one of those questionable issues facing foreign startups a lot. If he couldn't legally operate a business in the US, who's responsible for and owns the video footage? I assume Steele considers herself the American partner who actually has all those rights? IANAL and all that.

    2. Re:But wait, there's more... by tibit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A visa is a document that entitles you to cross the border, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't need much to do with what's your immigration status once you're in the country.

      You can own and operate a business in the U.S. even without a visa -- obviously, because a visa is to cross the border and that's it. You can also own and operate such a business without having any immigration status. Heck, you can even without ever having to set foot in the U.S. None of it is illegal. Now, being employed by or rendering services for said U.S. business while also being on the U.S. soil, that's what requires appropriate status with DHS (fka INS).

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  6. Deja vu all over again? by jaca44 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I could swear I've seen this earlier, like a week ago? Maybe my jet lag is worse than I thought!

    1. Re:Deja vu all over again? by Kneo24 · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/30/1342219/australian-federal-court-awards-damages-to-artist-for-false-copyright-claim

  7. I just don't get it? by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I come out of the film industry and my saying is "some one always gets greedy". I told this to my expartner on my last film and he claimed that wasn't the case. Just to prove my point he stole the film literally from my home and to this day it's gone unfinished and is effectively worthless. I've seen it happen time after time that some one involved gets greedy and often the films get shelved because of it so no one benefits. The oddest thing it tends to be the person least involved that thinks they deserve it all which is what happened to me. On my previous film an actor sued the distributor because he thought he should get a share of the profits in spite of the fact the film broke even and his contract didn't grant him profits. He lost the first lawsuit and got a $25,000 judgement against him so what did he do? He sued a second time and lost again. It's shocking how greedy people get when they think they can make a quick buck.

    1. Re:I just don't get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clare Torry was awarded half copyright and something in "an undisclosed settlement" for her contribution in Pink Floyd's A Great Gig in the Sky even though she initially did it as work for hire and was paid 30 for it years earlier. The PF case is a little different and that Clare was eventually awarded the 1/2 copyright, this case sounds like the performer is just assuming she has 1/2 copyright.

      http://www.freelanceuk.com/news/1006.shtml

  8. Umm, but.. by Weezul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try this against sound exchange. lol

    Fine, copyright law works between two nobodies. Ain't never seen it "work" whenever anyone big got involved.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  9. Re:I'm confused... by hemo_jr · · Score: 2

    Sounds like you have a lazy lawyer.

    You have the right to sue for actual and punitive damages. And if you use copyright math, those damages can be astronomical.

  10. Re:Dingoes by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Duh. They eat babies. Even I know that and I'm not Australian.

  11. Re:Copyright in the film. by LocalH · · Score: 2

    18 hours of raws for a porno? U mad bro?

    --
    FC Closer