Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should This Photographer Sue A Hotel For $2M? (google.com)
Unhappy Windows User writes: An Austrian photographer was contracted by the luxury [hotel] Sofitel in Vienna to photograph the bar with an amazing view over the skyline. He was paid for his time (4200 euros) and arranged a three-year internal usage contract for the photos. After the contract expired, he still found his photos being used -- on external sites too. He is now suing for 2 million euros, based on each individual usage.
My question is: Is this the real market value of his work...? It seems like the largest economic contribution to the work was from Sofitel, who allowed access to the property and closed it to customers. I don't have any issue in a photographer wanting to be paid fairly for his work, and asking for perhaps double or treble the original price for the breach of contract to match what an unlimited license would have cost. [But] with this money they could have employed a professional for a month and automatically obtained full rights to the work...it seems like this guy is trying to take advantage of an oversight by a large corporation, never to have to work again.
Here's the original article in German and an English translation, and it's one of those rare cases where the copyright belongs to an individual instead of a massive entertainment conglomeration. But do you think the photographer should be suing for 2 million euros over this copyright beach?
My question is: Is this the real market value of his work...? It seems like the largest economic contribution to the work was from Sofitel, who allowed access to the property and closed it to customers. I don't have any issue in a photographer wanting to be paid fairly for his work, and asking for perhaps double or treble the original price for the breach of contract to match what an unlimited license would have cost. [But] with this money they could have employed a professional for a month and automatically obtained full rights to the work...it seems like this guy is trying to take advantage of an oversight by a large corporation, never to have to work again.
Here's the original article in German and an English translation, and it's one of those rare cases where the copyright belongs to an individual instead of a massive entertainment conglomeration. But do you think the photographer should be suing for 2 million euros over this copyright beach?
Presumably it was negotiated with the price. If they wanted more years, they should have paid more upfront.
It is also obvious, to anyone of functional mind, that lawsuits shouldn't be for some "fair" pricing of the disputed value. Anyone who does not understand why, can ask and will undoubtedly receive a thorough thrashing which i, personally, do not have the patience to provide. The whole premise (generously speaking) of this article is dog shit flamebait.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
He is only going by precedent set by the music industry for copyright infringement with charging for each instance of infringement instead of standard music rates which in the industry case would be the cost of a song or album. Why would a large corporation get away with large scale copyright infringement and simply settle for a standard contract amount after the fact.
Oversight does not reduce your legal responsibilities or penalties.
Considering the insane amounts that companies go after individuals for where the power dynamic is reversed, then hell yes he should go after them for as much as he can. Whenever individuals do something wrong, no matter how minor, companies go after them for huge amounts way out of line with actual damages. They have the lawyers and the time and the money, and they use it to abuse those with none of those things. If the situation was reversed I have no doubt the company would be going after him for as much or more. But when the dynamic changes, and companies use things from individuals, they tend to abuse the shit out of it again, 'forgetting' to take things down, using without attribution or permission, or just straight up stealing work and IP. And then again, they have the time, money, and lawyers to get off easy, because most individuals they screw over can't afford to go toe to toe with them for as long as it takes to get results. I don't think this is right, by any means, by either the individual or the company. But while the company can and does do it, then what does the individual get by not acting the same way? The moral high ground is great, but in cases like this it doesn't make you a living. You just end up poor with your hard work being ripped off left and right. Screw that.
This article is a good example of the old rule on Slashdot and elsewhere, "when a title is a question, the answer is always ". And it is one of the very rare exceptions.
Lawsuits, and prosecutions, always start by default with the maximum possible penalty. It's similar to submitting a bid for contract work: you sibmit a bid for as much as the market will bear, to do the maximum possible amount of work with the least resources, and then negotiate. It's very rare for the dollar figure in a lawsuit to bear more than a passing resemblance to any damages awarded or any negotiated settlement.
As far as the law is concerned, this photographer has _excellent_ grounds for a very large lawsuit. The work was used in violation of the contract, it was used commercially, large scale abuse of the copyrighted material was involved, and the defendant has apparently admitted to some level of guilt. So of course the photographer should start with the maximum penalty in the lawsuit, so that they can reach a finding or a settlement that discourages similar abuses.
Law != moral
We might not be able to pass judgement on whether the photographer WILL get the money, but we can very well pass judgement on whether he SHOULD get the money. After all, as voters, us citizens are responsible for making sure judges get to judge on laws that represent our moral values.
Regardless of what a judge might say, I think the price of 2 million euro per usage is way too much.
Standing up for your legal rights is one thing, trying to abuse them to get rich is quite another.
The only thing this photographer is doing, is making sure nobody will ever hire him for anything ever again; too much of a legal risk.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Of course _HIS_ lawyer said sue, that's how Lawyers make money. Sue for 20gigabazillion dollars probably gives the gig away, so "sue for 20million". _HIS_ lawyer will be taking a nice fat check regardless of outcome, but generally they also take a percentage of the settlement.
I'd be willing to bet that the companies attorney said "he can't win", because they get paid to defend the company.
Is there a moral limit on what he should get if the company broke contract? Absolutely, but morals don't get paid too much attention to any longer.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Long story short, they owe him something which is closer to the original payment than to the extortionist amount he seeks.
Unless this can be shown to be a willful breach of contract and infringement of the photog's copyright. That can trigger punitive and/or larger fines (at least in the US, I think--not sure about German law).