Image Lifted From Twitter Leads to $1.2M Payout For Haitian Photog

magic maverick writes "A U.S. federal jury has ordered Agence France-Presse and Getty Images to pay $1.2 million to a Daniel Morel, Haitian photographer, for their unauthorized use of photographs, from the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The images, posted to Twitter, were taken by an editor at AFP and then provided to Getty. A number of other organizations had already settled out of court with the photographer."

Comments

Sweet sweet copyright justice

[assemblerex]

Big business "borrows" images all the time. Nice to see they have to pay the working man (photographer) for once.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Information wants to be free for me, but not for thee.

Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[MacDork]

which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh)

You must be new here. GPL only works because of copyright.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

What does stealing an image from someone on Twitter have to do with doctors insurance, again?
Surely, I must have missed an important step there or something.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Okian Warrior]

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

You seem to be implying that we have a double standard in judging the moral position of copyright litigants.

Let me ask you something: do the "Voltage Pictures" standard contracts in any way, shape, or form conform to the common definition of Hollywood Accounting?

It's not that we always side with "the little guy" - we frequently side against small vendors making money off of illegal copying, such as Chinese illegal DVD vendors or businesses who sell open-source software.

The rule is this: we generally side against evil, in all its predatory, corrupt, and dishonourable ways.

What's your take on the "Voltage Pictures" contracts, BTW? I think people here would enjoy your views.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gl4ss]

I think the big deal is that they put the images on Getty..

so it's like someone taking somebodys music performance from youtube and putting it on spotify and for sale on itunes... rather than someone taking that music from youtube and putting it on vimeo.

they weren't trying to redistribute it for free, they were trying to get a fee for redistributing it.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[assemblerex]

The Hurt Locker made a profit as intended,but Voltage Pictures and are suing because they feel they are making less money than entitled. The guy in Haiti made no money at all, they just stole his images. So big business wanting every drop of blood versus a man who just wants a piece of the pie is an entirely different situation entirely. Public domain is saying you made enough money , now it belongs to everyone. This idea and public domain is under assault by companies like Voltage Pictures that want to make money forever.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

So big business wanting every drop of blood versus a man who just wants a piece of the pie is an entirely different situation entirely.

So people are only entitled to royalties if they really really need them? Thus, no rich person (or entity) should ever collect a royalty?

Hurt Locker really didn't profit.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

FWIW, I haven't watched your movie, probably never will. And I consider your studio's attempt to blackmail people they suspected of piracy to be little better than thuggish banditry.

Voltage Pictures is a production company, not a studio. Kathryn Bigelow actually produced her following picture with Annapurna Pictures, which is funded by one of Larry Ellison's kids.

My actual studio is Sony Pictures. You guys are cool with Sony, right? =D

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[artor3]

Everyone has a vested interest in their opinion. So what? It doesn't make them wrong. Seems like you just don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy he's pointing out.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

they weren't trying to redistribute it for free, they were trying to get a fee for redistributing it.

With respect, nobody is trying to redistribute anything for free. Either the creator distributes it and gets paid admission, or Kim Dotcom distributes it and gets millions in ad impressions. Ad revenue pays for the "free media revolution".

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[able1234au]

Payouts to the victims should reflect the loss. Punitive damages should not be in cash or if in cash should be paid to the state, just as normal fines are. The focus should be on what is being done to avoid this problem in the future. So in this case AFP would have to show that they have the process and steps in place to ensure that the issue is not repeated. Punitive damages could be in the form of them doing charity work or other non-cash forms. If the directors have to give up every saturday for a year you can bet this will never happen again, if it is cash, then the insurance company pays or it comes from profits and nothing much changes.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Can't decide if you forgot a smiley at the end or not.

My argument's quality is orthogonal to my employment.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[XaXXon]

I believe there is a strong difference between commercial and non-commercial copyright violations.

When you take what someone is trying to sell and sell it yourself, you've clearly crossed all moral boundaries. You've removed people who demonstrably will pay for the content from the pool of people to pay the creator.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

2012 was a movie, some would call "shitty," that made $700 million. Shitty subjective quality is not, nor has ever been, a valid freetard alibi.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[suutar]

I realize nobody is promised a profit. My opinion has nothing to do with screenwriters in particular. I believe http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ (particularly the balance sheet) explains my point of view sufficiently. After all, if big movies are so unprofitable, why do they keep making them?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[russotto]

My actual studio is Sony Pictures. You guys are cool with Sony, right? =D

Is that the Sony of Sony v. Universal, who along with establishing the idea that time-shifting of television programs was fair use, also defeated the idea that manufacture and sale any device which might enable an infringing use was itself a secondary infringement?

Or is that the Sony which put rootkits on their CDs as a copy protection scheme?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Both!

Or maybe, Neither! This is the Sony that was once called "Columbia Pictures," bought by the Japanese from the Coca-Cola Company in the late 1980s.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Okian Warrior]

What's the problem with Hollywood Accounting? Do you have any actual complaint here? The way writers are paid for work is completely regular and legal, and all people outside the business ever hear are the stories, heavily promoted, of certain individuals who thought they could get a better deal by taking their case to the press.

Hollywood accounting is essentially lying about profits so that the producers don't have to pay "percent of profit" agreements. I think the best example is Forrest Gump, about a year after release it was the third-highest-grossing movie of all time, having taken in around $661 million against a $55 million cost to produce and (at that time) still sitting at a $65 million loss.

Winston Groom [writer of "Forrest Gump"] was only made whole because he had you guys over a barrel: you couldn't make the sequel without his blessing, and he had been burned by the original movie.

Producers have a well-earned reputation as predatory, greedy, grasping, and immoral. I can remember reading occasional accounts of producer behaviour starting with the Three Stooges, with occasional first-hand and investigatory reports ever since with no change in perspective. A simple Google search exposes your history for all to see. You are widely regarded as bad people.

How is Hollywood Accounting more fair than, say, the common dot-com tactic of paying an employee with stock options and then diluting them? Or the technology company policy of paying a patent filer with a flat bonus? The difference is moral opprobrium and marketing, nothing more.

I think you meant to say "less fair".

We don't support companies that screw with employees either, we're pretty consistent about the "fairness" issue.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[guises]

"Vested interest" != "interest." Either by the dictionary definition or in the way that the grandparent was using the phrase, they are different things. You can easily have an opinion on something in which you have no vested interest.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gman003]

How did we arrive at life of author plus seventy years, or 95 years from publication for "authorless" works? You cannot simply say that my number is wrong - defend your own position.

As for my own, it is partially based on computer history. Ten-year-old software is old enough to be of minimal use for current productive work, but is still important for learning and for maintenance of historical hardware.

However, it is also based on cultural relevance. It's enough time for the original work to be commercially exhausted, but for further adaptations (eg. for music, samples or covers) to remain relevant. This is the approximate amount of time it takes for a series reboot to occur, or for a movie to be remade, if we want to keep it relevant to your particular field instead of mine.

But yes, the ten-year figure was rather arbitrary. I'd be happy with a twenty-year term as well. Just think, for your own use, what would be available. Imagine film students learning their craft by re-editing classics. Imagine films being translated and dubbed into any language with a speaker who cares enough to translate it. And instead of these things happening in the shadows, hushed up for fear of lawyers, it being done out in the open for all to see and benefit from.

Or, for your own benefit, imagine you could use any song over ten years old in your soundtrack? Go ahead, think of whatever song would be just *perfect* for whatever moment in whatever film you're currently working on - nine times out of ten, it will be out of copyright under a ten-year term.

How much profit do you think Return of the King is still making? The Last Samurai? Finding Nemo? What about the 2003 movies that weren't top-grossing already - say, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Dreamcatcher and The Room?

Let's go back to 1993 then - are Jurassic Park, Mrs. Doubtfire and Schindler's List still making much money? If we made those films absolutely free, would any of the people involved be noticeably affected? And those are from the top five highest-grossing films from that year, the ones most likely to have a long profitable period.

So it's a reasonable statement to claim that artists would not be seriously affected by a significantly reduced copyright, save for those that are coasting off work done decades ago and have done nothing worthwhile in a decade. And it's also reasonable to claim that a reduced copyright would drive creativity, by opening decades of masterpieces to new use. Remasters of old movies and songs will be ubiquitous, not something done only for the commercial cream-of-the-crop.

And what's more, True Art, capital A, has a message, something its creator wanted to say to the world. Reducing copyright lets that message be heard while it is still relevant - and is that not worth doing?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Theaetetus]

However, it is also based on cultural relevance. It's enough time for the original work to be commercially exhausted

Mix stations, broadcasting "the greatest hits of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and today!" frown at your shenanigans.

but for further adaptations (eg. for music, samples or covers) to remain relevant. This is the approximate amount of time it takes for a series reboot to occur, or for a movie to be remade, if we want to keep it relevant to your particular field instead of mine.

But you have a point here, but your solution isn't tailored to your point. Copyright involves a bundle of rights - the right to copy and distribute, as well as the right to make derivative works. There's a huge argument to be made that the exclusive period for making derivative works should be less, as you point out - there are series reboots, remixes, sampling, etc. and if the original author isn't going to do it, then we shouldn't have to wait a century. Where would electronica or hip hop be without sampling?
But that's sampling and reboots and the like... Copying and distribution of the original work? That doesn't have the same moral argument for the creation of new works... If you want to copy and redistribute Star Wars - and mind you, the original Star Wars, not your Minecraft-based recreation that replaces stormtroopers with zombies- then why should you get to do so for free, merely because a decade has passed? The original is certainly still in publication, and there's a market for it.

Basically, it's the difference between an homage and parody, and plagiarism. We do want to protect people who make something new based on the bones of something that existed before. But simply copying something and presenting it as your own? Why should we give you any protection, and why should we harm the original author when you're just a copycat?

That's why I'd advocate a split copyright term. Life+70 if you want for the copying and distribution of the original work, or whatever other term makes sense. 5-10 years for derivative works. It even fits with many of your justifications that aren't based on just a "why should people make money from their creations for years" complaint:

Imagine film students learning their craft by re-editing classics. Imagine films being translated and dubbed into any language with a speaker who cares enough to translate it.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Nyder]

Hollywood accounting is essentially lying about profits so that the producers don't have to pay "percent of profit" agreements.

If you can show me a writer's contract that says "percent of profit," I'll surrender my account.

The entire "Hollywood Accounting" narrative was invented by the lawyers of disgruntled writers.

Here you go:

Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.[7] That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure".

Stan Lee, co-creator of the character Spider-Man, filed a lawsuit after the producers of the movie Spider-Man (2002) did not give him a portion of the gross revenue.[8]

The estate of Jim Garrison sued Warner Bros. for their share of the profits from the movie JFK, which was based on Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins.[9]

Art Buchwald received a settlement after his lawsuit Buchwald v. Paramount over Paramount's use of Hollywood accounting. The court found Paramount's actions "unconscionable", noting that it was impossible to believe that a movie (1988's Eddie Murphy comedy Coming to America) which grossed US$350 million failed to make a profit, especially since the actual production costs were less than a tenth of that. Paramount settled for an undisclosed sum, rather than have its accounting methods closely scrutinized.

The film My Big Fat Greek Wedding was considered hugely successful for an independent film, yet according to the studio, the film lost money. Accordingly, the cast (with the exception of Nia Vardalos who had a separate deal) sued the studio for their part of the profits. The original producers of the film have sued Gold Circle Films due to Hollywood accounting practices because the studio has claimed the film, which cost less than $6 million to make and made over $350 million at the box office, lost $20 million.[10]

Hollywood accounting is not limited to movies. An example is the Warner Bros. television series Babylon 5 created by J. Michael Straczynski. Straczynski, who wrote 90% of the episodes in addition to producing the show, would receive a generous cut of profits if not for Hollywood accounting.[citation needed] The series, which was profitable in each of its five seasons from 1993–1998, has garnered more than US$1 billion for Warner Bros., most recently US$500 million in DVD sales alone. But in the last profit statement given to Straczynski, Warner Bros. claimed the property was $80 million in debt. "Basically," says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."[11]

Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings, and his studio Wingnut Films, brought a lawsuit against New Line Cinema after "an audit... on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring". Jackson stated this is regarding "certain accounting practices", which may be a reference to Hollywood accounting. In response, New Line stated that their rights to a film of The Hobbit were time-limited, and since Jackson would not work with them again until the suit was settled, he would not be asked to direct The Hobbit, as had been anticipated.[12] Fifteen actors are suing New Line Cinema, claiming that they have never received their 5% of revenue from merchandise sold in relation to the movie, which contains their likeness.[13] Similarly, the Tolkien estate sued New Line, claiming that their contract entitled them to 7.5% of the gross receipts of the $6 billion hit.[14] Overall according to New Line's accounts the trilogy made "horrendous losses" and no profit at all.[15]

According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi despite having earned $475 million at the box-office against a budget o

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[slew]

Q: if it is common knowledge of Hollywood accounting tactics, why do people still make deals that depend on it not being the way it commonly is?

I asked this question once to my cousin who is in the business (actor, writer and is dating a director) who basically told me that this is mostly something that everyone knows about but must live with (if you don't take the deal they offer, they will find someone else). Most contracts are apparently standard SAG negotiated rates so are roughly based on the gross (albeit a small percentage, minus some hefty, but standard deductions). If you somehow get a residual check, it was "Mailbox Magic" (or something like that).

Apparently the ones you hear about mostly the press are separate non-standard contracts with individual talent that are apparently poorly negotiated and/or executed by agents. I have no knowledge of the details of such contracts, but I'm guessing that they more closely resemble hand-shake deals more than a legal treatise (which makes it unsurprising that one of the parties can drive trucks through the contract)...

IANAL, but my understanding is that it's easier to claim both sided must have agreed to common-sense understanding of a clause of a well-trodden standard-issue contract than a one-off contract which is why the rank-and-file gets the standard-issue one.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Alioth]

No, I don't think you understand the Slashdotter's complaint in this case.

The issue here is the big copyright holders constantly try to get legislation passed and put in technological means (enforced by legislation) to stop people copying from them. They even go to the extent of trying to introduce "piracy is wrong" lessons in the school curriculum. But at the same time they are quite happy to pirate material off anyone they perceive to be unable to defend themselves, a classic case of "do what I say, not what I do". Quite rightly Slashdotters feel that those who constantly preach the "don't pirate our stuff" message and even go as far as getting legislation passed should be practising what they preach.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Somebody Is Using My]

At this point, any agent who recommends that his client accepts a contract that promises a percentage of the net profits should be dismissed immediately (as incompetent), or perhaps sued for not acting in his/her client's best interests.

While this is true, it also condemns the "accounting" used by Hollywood in the same breath.

Just because "that's the way it is" doesn't mean it is right.

Movies are incredibly profitable for the Hollywood corporations. If their accounting methods were fair and above board, requesting a percentage of the net profits would be an equally fair way to distribute the monies of a successful movie. The salaried workers of the studios would get their weekly pay-check, and the contracted directors, actors, etc. would get paid based on the quality of their work, encouraging them to make the best movie they can.

That lawyers and agents have to demand a piece of the gross is a symptom of the problem, not the solution.

The Hollywood system is corrupt to its core, so it is no wonder it garners so little sympathy from Slashdot, even when it sometimes is in the right. Having bilked so many people out of billions over the years, few feel any hypocrisy in rooting for their opponents if it means Hollywood gets some long overdue comeuppance.

When the shoe is on the other foot...

[shameless]

Getty Images makes no bones about asking a lot of money for their images and making sure they get paid. I own a business that among other things produces fine art prints. Some time back a customer asked about a print of a particular Old Master painting that wasn't listed in any publisher's catalog. Tracking down a high-resolution image that I could print myself led me to Getty Images. The minimum royalty for this kind of use was in the $300 range. The rep came right out and said that their royalty structure would not be economical for one-off print like I was seeking.

This, BTW, is for an image that is theoretically in the public domain.

Re:When the shoe is on the other foot...

[Arker]

Actually the photograph is only supposed to be copyrightable if it contains a novel and creative element - i.e. if it's a good straight photo with no funny stuff (like you want for a print) then it is not copyrightable.

Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[tepples]

Without copyright, anybody with more time than money could disassemble, document, and distribute any proprietary fork of a program and turn binaries back into (assembly language) source code useful for cloning the added functionality in the Free branch.

Re:Photog

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a douche. Just so you don't have to look it up, that's short for douchebag, and I'm implying that you're only useful for cleaning vaginas.

You didn't read a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/16151225339/statutory-damages-strike-again-afp-getty-told-to-pay-12-million-using-photo-found-via-twitter.shtml

Start with: AFP sued Morel first. Wait, they sued him for using HIS image? Basically yes, they claimed commercial defamation against him. even though he sent them a letter, and had not gone public...

They claimed Twitter's TOS allowed them to take the image and use it without pay or attribution even.
Then they claim Twitpic's TOS allowed it when that didn't pan out.

After that, rather than trying to settle, they stuck to their guns and took it to trial anyways. And at trial...they lost. And they were penalized with 1.2 million in statutory damages the maximum award of 150,000.00 per infringement (there were several uses of the photo in question apparently) by the jury. Plus an award for DMCA violations (reports are sketchy on the actual amount, but 16 violations with a minimum of 2,500.00 each so its not chump change either), AND attorney's fees.

So, your premise that this guy is a douchebag and sued these guys in court to get a massive payout on some silly little pic is actually factually incorrect and entirely baseless if you had bothered to read either of the stories covering this. AFP and Getty were the dickbags here, and they apparently pissed the jury off. Everyone SHOULD cheers these kinds of payouts, they ARE ridiculous. This level of statutory penalty should make eyes pop and faces redden, and everyone should sit up and take notice when a big company gets hit by them and not just individual citizens who really will never pay even a fraction of these amounts. I hope this slows down the copyright maximalists a little bit, to see that it can and will eventually begin to bite them and with the world at large fairly sick of seeing the big guys push around people, maximum damage awards will be fairly common against them.

Re:You didn't read a thing

[phorm]

everyone should sit up and take notice when a big company gets hit by them and not just individual citizens who really will never pay even a fraction of these amounts

Corporations *should* pay more for these damages than average citizens. If I get hit with a $1000 fine, that's enough to hurt my pocketbook and make me re-think what I'm doing. For many larger corporations, even 10x that is barely a pinprick, and often the fine is less than the profit they reap by whatever they were sued over.

Look at the issues with oil spills, banks and financial organizations committing fraud, etc. A fine shouldn't in most cases be enough to ruin somebody's life, but it shouldn't be so small as to go unnoticed either. Putting private citizens in the same categories as large corporations is a bad idea, though thankfully "commercial" infringement is considered a bit harsher the penalties overall for private persons is still obscenely disproportionate.

Interoperability

[tepples]

Thethe main exception to that would be if you were doing something for compatibility or such and didn't even really know what it was doing in the first place

That's exactly the case for the printer driver problem that kicked off the GNU project. Mr. Stallman and friends wanted to interoperate with a printer, and its manufacturer was being obstructive.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[SydShamino]

My first guess is that the settlements were reasonable and it meant they didn't have to go to trial. =P

Even if they would win, it would be bad press for them to be dragging a little guy through a trial in which they admitted using his photos without his permission, but instead argued that they were themselves defrauded by a third party. As far as I know, they would be found liable for damages, and then be told to sue the third party (in this case, Getty) themselves to recoup their losses.

For the Haitian photographer, the settlements with the end users likely made their position negotiating with Getty stronger, though Getty seems to have gone to trial anyway.

The Getty Images that threatens website owners?

[nctritech]

Seems to me that this is another nail in the coffin. As many small business websites as they have gone after with extortion letters rather than letters trying to convert them to paying customers, I have no problem with Getty being dinged and dinged hard for doing the same that that they go after small businesses for. Getty has been a poor corporate citizen for many years, and at worst we should expect them to strictly abide by the same copyright rules that they are so adamant about.

Bridgeman v. Corel; damage

[tepples]

The "image" may be in the public domain but photographs of it are not.

Depends on the country. In the United States, the Southern District Court of New York ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation that faithful photos of a public domain painting aren't original to get their own copyright.

Handling and photographing (the lighting) artwork irrevocably damages it a little each time.

In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?

Re:Bridgeman v. Corel; damage

[0123456]

In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?

The camera steals its soul.

Re:next week nigga be dead

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until your mom catches you using language like that on the internet and grounds you from the computer right before your big World of Warcraft raid?

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[roc97007]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.

Point is, it's possible he knew exactly how the internet works, but with the expectation that he can display his works without having them ripped off, any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.

...so this facebook and google thing, where they mine photos and use them as advertisements, is going to get interesting if they use a copyright work from a pro. IANAL, but I don't think a TOS will help them there.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[Theaetetus]

I would assume they concluded that settling would be less costly than fighting it. The fact that it was settled for an undisclosed amount probably suggests that the original author was asking something more reasonable then what was awarded in court.

The problem with copyright is that dissemination or distribution in and of itself is a violation so even if I swore to you that I owned the copyright and you could distribute it, you are not entirely off the hook if I was not truthful. Of course any sane court would likely keep any penalties as low as possible if you could prove that. Some juries might even toss it out because of the mens rea involved but it would require going to court and risking losing the case.

No, if I can prove you swore to me that you owned the copyright and I could distribute it, I'm entirely off the hook... Or technically I am off the hook, and you're the one who's boned.
The rule is Rule 14, which states that if I'm sued, I can bring you in as a third-party defendant if you're liable for all or part of the claim against me: I infringed the copyright, but because of your fraud, you're responsible for my actions. The best part is, if I can prove that tiny piece of it - show my contract with you, for example - I can walk away from the copyright infringement case and never have to show up in court. If "I" lose that one, then even if I owe the plaintiff a million dollars, you're 100% liable to me, so really, it's you who loses. Hence why I could take a default judgement and not care.

This also comes up in insurance proceedings. If you sue me and I'm fully covered by insurance, I'll just bring in my insurance company and let them defend the suit if they want. I don't care because, win or lose, I don't pay anything.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Firethorn]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

Yeah, use a browser other than IE and/or some sort of flashblock.

I make a point of saving any images on websites that attempt to block 'save as' by disabling the right mouse click. I normally find this out when I'm trying to either open up a link in a new tab or go back one handed (so no ctrl-click). If the site is 'personal' enough that they're probably paying attention, I sometimes email it to them going in a polite way 'Your protection is both a failure and an annoyance'.

"Haitian Photog"

[nitehawk214]

I pronounce photog as "pho-tog". I think it is a Vietnamese dish.