Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: Should This Photographer Sue A Hotel For $2M? (google.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the copyrights-and-wrongs dept.

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?

6 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. dont know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dont know. Ask a lawyer. Which he appears to have done.

    Sounds like they are in breach of contract. But a German judge will have to work that out.

    1. Re:dont know by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, currently the hotel chain is only offering him 300 euros for having erased his name as the main copyright holder, claiming the copyright ownership themselves (which was not part of the original contract), and given permission to 170 architecture and travel publications (including the New York Times, the Telegraph, and the Financial Times) to have reprinted his photographs without attribution.

      So is this worth 3 million euros? Probably not. But it certainly isn't worth 300 euros either.

      Both parties behaving like assholes is standard negotiation practice. It doesn't mean that either party will get what they ask for. It just means that negotiation has just begun.

  2. Bed made, lay in it by bhetrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If an an individual making a single copy of a work by a large company is $200k or so, why is a large company giving copies of a work by an individual to all comers (publishing it on the web) supposed to get a pass? Is it right? Obviously not. But this is the way the deep pockets want it, so that's the way it is.

  3. Whats the problem? by Diac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:The 'real market value of his work' is irreleva by bugnuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But it seems dubious to sell short-term licenses for photographs - I've never even heard of that as a thing, and have no idea why anyone would agree to that.

    This is a standard commercial license, and you haven't heard of it because you are not a professional photographer or need their services. Most commercial photography does not include the copyright, rather a license to use that copyright for a period of time and specific uses. People violate it all the time, and usually this is simple enough (and inexpensive enough) to deal with.

    But TFA implied the hotel didn't care they pirated his work and offered a trivial sum for the excessive violation. The moment they exceeded the usage limits, they were violating copyright.

    Consider lending someone your car to drive 100 miles. They return the car with 10,000 miles on it. You complain, and they offer to pay you for another 100 miles. That's not what the agreement was, and they made an insulting offer to compensate for it.

  5. Know by Reibisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrong.

    The lawsuit isn't for continued access to work; the entity that initially hired him and agreed to the terms had an opportunity to negotiate continued/expanded access either before the contract was executed or in the intervening three years. The lawsuit is because the entity elected to ignore the previously negotiated contract. Intentional or accidental is for a court to decide.

    If the award for breach of contract was simply the fee that would have been due, then there would be no incentive to bother honoring contracts -- you could simply pretend it didn't exist, not pay until someone noticed, and then get off with the same cost as you would have paid had both parties been diligent. No, lawsuits relating to breaches of contract are for additional damages (and courts subsequently award said damages) to punish the offending party as a deterrent to those who would shirk the responsibilities of a contract in the first place.