That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct
equivalent to physical property,...
I think intellectual property(IP) rights are valid, but not equivalent to
physical property rights (because the scarcity of physical property doesn't apply to IP).
People who create useful IP must be compensated enough to financially
survive (and be able to produce more useful IP). That does not have to
require that the IP is made artificially scarce...aren't all the photos
taken by NASA are in the public domain? The photographers/astronauts
who took them were paid for their work (public financing of photography).
I have no idea if public funding for the creation of IP is a good idea
overall, but it's one example of compensating creators while sharing the
IP freely:-) With trial and error, some equal or better
solution should be possible.
Summary judgment is allowed if there is no genuine dispute over the material facts. Motions for summary judgment are often brought after discovery and before the trial. Many issues are often decided at summary judgment.
However, some pretty absurd disputes make it to trial. One might survive summary judgment on a claim that another wrongfully took your life...who says I'm alive? That's a question for a medical expert, and I'll produce one at trial who will say I'm not alive (at trial, you may not have such an expert, but you made it to trial).
And you didn't think upgrading your Flash player would be a good idea? It works fine for me with Firefox and Flash 9 under Ubuntu. (Mind you Flash installation, or really any commercial software, could be a lot easier.)
On the landing page, I right-click on the flash intro to verify my version of Flash Player:
"About Adobe Flash Player 9"
Seems like Flash Player 9 is working OK, yet navigating further into the site by clicking on
any other link gets me an error about Flash Player:
"Express Install is not supported by this version of Flash Player".
I got the same behavior on two different Linux machines, Gentoo and Fedora Core,
one running Firefox 2.0.0.4 and the other 2.0.0.12.
I tried re-installing Flash 9, didn't make any difference. Flash works fine for me
on most every other website, but this Adobe site is not usable for me.
So, after TWO YEARS, was this really all worth it, or did you just sort of get dragged through it once they launched the defamation lawsuit? I mean, how many hours did you spend, are you actually seeing any of that judgment money? What impact has this had on your life?
The alternative was to take down the webpage they complained about and forgo compensation for their
commercial use of my photography.
If they could do this to me, as corrupt and wrong as they were, it could happen to me again, and to anyone else.
I would, in a very real way, be giving up on my right to publish the truth online, and be compensated for my work
when used commercially by others.
I believed I had to stand up against that. Whether or not it was worth it perhaps depends on the value you place
on these issues, but I value them pretty highly and so, yes, it was worth it to me.
It's impacted my life in that I know a lot more about the law. There was an issue of implied threats
against me, so I've been in close touch with my local police (the station is a block from me). It's been
a huge stress, but I don't regret it. As for collection, I am optimistic.
What part of photography catagorizers someone as a geek?
Yes, that's a valid point. I didn't have space in the summary to point out
I use Linux, perl, MySQL, and have run my photography service using open source
exclusively since 1998. I divide my time between photography and coding
(and for the last two years, litigating).
The judge was minded to award him costs and lawyers fees, but since he represented himself, he didn't get any...
About 40% of the litigation was over copyright, the other half was defending myself against six
counterclaims. The provision of copyright law that awards lawyer's fees would not cover my costs in defending
against these counterclaims (which might be $80,000 if I used a lawyer). I might only get my lawyer's fees
for litigating the second photo, the only one registered prior to the infringement.
I've found the law is extremely layered, and what seems obvious turns out to be complex.
When your research is done, you have to repeat it, looking for unforeseen conditions. I think I
worked harder on the case than any lawyer would.
I RTFA and I'm wondering what a "digital negative" is.
I'm not aware of a precise definition of what a "digital negative" is, but
in this lawsuit I used the term to point out to the court that I possessed a high-resolution,
full-frame version of the image, while the other side only had (at best)
a reduced, cropped, web version of the image. They claimed to have bought
the photo from the "true photographer", so this would be inconsistent.
In the end, they never produced any version of the photo, and I was ruled
to be the copyright owner based on other factors.
Two and a half years for the award he got is a Pyrrhic victory. So, the truth is, there aint no justice. And yes, that's depressing.
I basically agree, but want to point out I also got to keep my grip webpage up (they sought an injunction against it).
I shouldn't have had to go through this, but I figured the outcome might deter other bullies who want to silence online
critics.
Maybe I'm missing something here. But didn't a Judge just find that a financial firm
involved in mortgages filed false documents with a court under oath? Wouldn't that put them out of business?
How can they act as a party in getting Deed Insurance if they have been found to lie under oath?
I filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Market Enforcement Division, over this
exact issue (my case no. is MO2603479). That was two years ago. I sent follow-up emails and left phone messages,
and sent them this verdict recently. They have yet to reply, and unfortunately it appears they actually
gave the other party in this suit a NEW mortgage originator's license under a new corporate name.
I don't know what's going on over there.
NO. The case is over and the plaintiff won. He forfeited his claim for "derived profits" damages, possibly amounting to many thousands of dollars. In other words, he committed legal malpractice against himself. The guy should have looked harder for a lawyer willing to take the case, since attorney fees would have also been awarded in addition to the extra damages.
FYI: I researched claims for infringer's profits in cases where a photo was used in an advertisement. I
found that precedent requires the Plaintiff produce actual customers who testify the photo caused them
(at least in part) to become customers (you can then get a small percentage of the infringer's profits).
I thought that might incur more investigation and deposition costs
than it was worth, and was otherwise busy trying to uncover the other side's fraud.
That is all you got? What happened to libel, defamation of character, punitive damages, etc.
You should have gone with representation.
The last time I used a lawyer, also on an "open-and-shut" case, he lost the case for me
(I suspect because he was juggling too many cases). I dedicated myself to this ONE case,
lived and breathed it for two years, and came up with better points of law than the side
opposing me. I worked harder to make up for my lack of experience.
I'm generally against suing for libel or defamation, as I consider it
"feeding the trolls", but I posted below about the possibility of future
damages for the other side's fraud in this case.
19 grand for a corporation that blatantly forged documents? Its a laughingly tiny fine for a corp. They basically got let off even though they committed what sounds like perjury in court. Its disgusting.
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.
By my reading, the watermark was originally towards the bottom of the image, and they just cropped it out.
The new watermarks seem to show he's learned his lesson.
Yes, that is exactly what happened. I learned other lessons, many of which
I will probably not share outside my family or I will seem cynical.
I believe the verdict was just in this case, and I'm not cynical.
See the difference? The first one is a simple contract which people willfully
enter into because the photographer has something the buyer wants.
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.
You are extremely lucky that you had a judge who wanted to help you...you were a mega big - but lucky - fool this time
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.
...you are probably going to convince some other poor slob to try this...
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.
Someone used your artistic work without paying you...and you sued them?
Interesting the first few posts are of support, wonder what the reponse would be if this story was about the RIAA.
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.
Just curious - how much money did you spend on lawyer's fees and other costs, and how much time did you spend doing research, preparing motions, and being in court?
Lawyer's fees, court costs, service of process, depositions, etc. were around $10,000. How much time? I'm afraid to think. Some weeks were 40 hours, others were zero. Over 2+ years, it was a lot. Of course, the other side spent as much as $100,000 (or more) and they didn't get the courts to shut down my web page.
I'm not sure whether to be proud or embarrassed, but I did all my legal research using Google. The only paid service I used was Pacer, and that only for 2-3 cases. I bought
one case from LexisNexis (Pinkham v. Sara Lee, 8th US Circuit), which cost $9.00. In the end,
I was awarded $19,462 in damages (and I defeated six claims against me).
I found most of what I needed at Findlaw.com, www.law.cornell.edu. Specific state cases for Minnesota were at state.mn.us/lawlibrary/. I went to a law library only one time, and they didn't have what I needed, and I never went back.
I did get advice from an attorney on legal procedure (stuff not in any book). I would have used LexisNexis or West Law if it wasn't so overpriced ($9.00 for one webpage? All because the case was too old to be on Pacer, where it would cost about 18 cents). I'm going to try out this guy's service in the future.
I couldn't find anything about someone trying to have one of your photos removed because they appeared in it.
From the introduction of that page: "Vilana sued me for defamation when I claimed they were guilty of copyright infringement (a court ruled they are). They added six more causes of action, including appropriation of name and likeness for posting Vilenchik's photo on this page."
There were lot of claims, trademark infringement was another. There are are details about
the appropriation of likeness in the long chronology of the case on that page.
Huh. You won in the end, but it also sounds like you went through a lot of effort to do so. I have to wonder was it really worth it? I often wonder what motivates people to go through the legal system for what seems to the rest of us, mostly trivial matters.
They sued me for six causes of action, seeking one million dollars. The only settlement
options required that I replace my gripe webpage with a page endorsing the corporate (who the
judge ruled had forged evidence in the case). So you're saying, give up my right to free
speech on the internet, because it's trivial? You're currently exercising that right.
...people are even demonizing those who even bring up privacy as a concern.
I was sued in federal court for violating someone's right to privacy (06-cv-01164, D. Minn). I posted their photo on my website, and they sued to get it removed and get damages. I represented myself, had a trial Nov. 5th, and the verdict was issued last Friday. I won. Yes, I demonize the person who sued me over his exaggerated privacy concerns, which led to a baseless federal lawsuit that tried to quash my free speech rights. Their exaggerated privacy
concerns were not harmless.
I've posted about this litigation on Slashdot before, but the verdict is in now so here's the URL again: Gregerson v. Vilana
The plus side of sharing private info on the web: I got to know my wife only after seeing her photo on her geocities page, scoping her out to see what the
stranger from the other
side of the world, who emailed me asking for a.pdf file, looked like (her formal writing style made her seem middle-aged, but her photo showed she was actually much younger, and we started corresponding).
I posted my own medical information online 10 years ago, which has since helped other patients. I posted info about my late brother's illness, also to help other patients, which it seems to have done. If you reply to this post and attack me over my health problems, or my deceased brother's illness, I don't think that exposes me as a bad person -- it exposes you as a jerk. If you won't hire me because of these things, I -- me, personally -- am OK with that.
It is much easier (and cheaper) to spell out user licenses and sue for breach-of-contract than it is to get anyone on copyright infringement and actually have it be worth your time to pursue.
I agree, and brought several claims successfully in small claims court under a
breach-of-contract argument. But in one case, the defendant's attorney
argued that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over anything related to
copyright, and the case was dismissed without prejudice to re-file in federal court.
They then sued me for defamation, and I filed a federal copyright
lawsuit against them. It went to trial in November
(Gregerson v. Vilana).
This brilliant move cost them as much as >$100,000 in legal fees,
on top of whatever the judge awards me (I'm still waiting for the verdict).
I represented myself, with procedural advise from an attorney (still
quite expensive).
They tried to claim the photo wasn't mine, they even forged a sales
agreement and claimed a non-existent person took the photo. This
went nowhere, with the court finding the photo was mine based on my
copyright registration (and perhaps eyeballing the disputed
photo and the original on my website).
I believe there will be a better system in the future, but I don't know
what it will look like. As one example from history of a different approach,
some great works of art were created during the depression under the WPA
Federal Art Project,
all public domain (artists were paid without having to sue).
A corporation took a photo from my website (cgstock.com) and used it in an entire ad campaign (phone book, brochures, newspaper). I saw it, they refused to pay, then sued me for defamation when I wrote about it on my website ( http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana ).
The case went to trial in federal court November 5th, 2007 (case 06-01164, District of MN -- my copyright infringement claim and multiple counterclaims over me "disparaging" them...it was a bench trial and I'm still waiting for the judge's ruling).
I explicitly permit non-commercial use of my photos -- personal web pages, schools, etc. (I require a photo credit, but I would not sue over it). But I greatly object if you are making money from my work, you HAVE A BUDGET to pay me, but are cutting me out of the loop to inflate your profits while I'm earning nothing.
There are excessive penalties for copyright infringement where the infringer does not seek to profit, but (speaking subjectively) I would like the corporation that stole my photos (two photos, actually), lied about it, forged evidence, and tied up in court since 2005, to pay "a billion dollars"...not just a token amount, or a few hundred. The risk of getting caught has to be a deterrent, which (for this company) it was not.
(licensing photos largely relies on professionalism and the honor system; if a local bank tells me they are going to use my photo in 1,000 brochures, I assume they are not using it in a TV campaign, billboards, and 100,000 brochures -- if so, the damages should outweigh the benefit of lying).
I guess this relates to the change in copyright law (to address P2P) that equated infringement without a profit motive = infringement with a profit motive.
Trust me, it is possible to live in your own safe and perfect little world, here in the Philippines, without ever being affected by the problems in the impoverished and unstable regions of the country.
I agree, I lived in Angeles City, Pampanga, for six months, and although I sought out impoverished and rural areas in the Philippines, one could live in Makati, Manila, and never see them.
The PERCEPTION of instability is another factor that works against my country.
While I found the risk of terrorism and kidnapping to be tolerable (and mostly in the south), the existence of a kidnap-for-ransom trade affecting wealthy foreigners in Manila is a legitimate reason for the Philippines to be perceived as dangerous. If Google built a datacenter outside Manila, they might have to pay the NPA to avoid an attack, diba? (Ang Pilipinas ay mahalaga sakin)
Slashdot Mirror
I think intellectual property(IP) rights are valid, but not equivalent to physical property rights (because the scarcity of physical property doesn't apply to IP).
People who create useful IP must be compensated enough to financially survive (and be able to produce more useful IP). That does not have to require that the IP is made artificially scarce...aren't all the photos taken by NASA are in the public domain? The photographers/astronauts who took them were paid for their work (public financing of photography).
I have no idea if public funding for the creation of IP is a good idea overall, but it's one example of compensating creators while sharing the IP freely :-) With trial and error, some equal or better
solution should be possible.
Summary judgment is allowed if there is no genuine dispute over the material facts. Motions for summary judgment are often brought after discovery and before the trial. Many issues are often decided at summary judgment.
However, some pretty absurd disputes make it to trial. One might survive summary judgment on a claim that another wrongfully took your life...who says I'm alive? That's a question for a medical expert, and I'll produce one at trial who will say I'm not alive (at trial, you may not have such an expert, but you made it to trial).
Sez the geek:
I'm married to Arlene Gregerson, and expecting Athena Gregerson on March 5th! Sila ay pinaka mahalaga sa akin (they are the most precious to me).
The alternative was to take down the webpage they complained about and forgo compensation for their commercial use of my photography. If they could do this to me, as corrupt and wrong as they were, it could happen to me again, and to anyone else. I would, in a very real way, be giving up on my right to publish the truth online, and be compensated for my work when used commercially by others.
I believed I had to stand up against that. Whether or not it was worth it perhaps depends on the value you place on these issues, but I value them pretty highly and so, yes, it was worth it to me.
It's impacted my life in that I know a lot more about the law. There was an issue of implied threats against me, so I've been in close touch with my local police (the station is a block from me). It's been a huge stress, but I don't regret it. As for collection, I am optimistic.
Yes, that's a valid point. I didn't have space in the summary to point out I use Linux, perl, MySQL, and have run my photography service using open source exclusively since 1998. I divide my time between photography and coding (and for the last two years, litigating).
About 40% of the litigation was over copyright, the other half was defending myself against six counterclaims. The provision of copyright law that awards lawyer's fees would not cover my costs in defending against these counterclaims (which might be $80,000 if I used a lawyer). I might only get my lawyer's fees for litigating the second photo, the only one registered prior to the infringement.
I've found the law is extremely layered, and what seems obvious turns out to be complex. When your research is done, you have to repeat it, looking for unforeseen conditions. I think I worked harder on the case than any lawyer would.
I'm not aware of a precise definition of what a "digital negative" is, but in this lawsuit I used the term to point out to the court that I possessed a high-resolution, full-frame version of the image, while the other side only had (at best) a reduced, cropped, web version of the image. They claimed to have bought the photo from the "true photographer", so this would be inconsistent. In the end, they never produced any version of the photo, and I was ruled to be the copyright owner based on other factors.
I basically agree, but want to point out I also got to keep my grip webpage up (they sought an injunction against it). I shouldn't have had to go through this, but I figured the outcome might deter other bullies who want to silence online critics.
I filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Market Enforcement Division, over this exact issue (my case no. is MO2603479). That was two years ago. I sent follow-up emails and left phone messages, and sent them this verdict recently. They have yet to reply, and unfortunately it appears they actually gave the other party in this suit a NEW mortgage originator's license under a new corporate name. I don't know what's going on over there.
FYI: I researched claims for infringer's profits in cases where a photo was used in an advertisement. I found that precedent requires the Plaintiff produce actual customers who testify the photo caused them (at least in part) to become customers (you can then get a small percentage of the infringer's profits). I thought that might incur more investigation and deposition costs than it was worth, and was otherwise busy trying to uncover the other side's fraud.
The last time I used a lawyer, also on an "open-and-shut" case, he lost the case for me (I suspect because he was juggling too many cases). I dedicated myself to this ONE case, lived and breathed it for two years, and came up with better points of law than the side opposing me. I worked harder to make up for my lack of experience.
I'm generally against suing for libel or defamation, as I consider it "feeding the trolls", but I posted below about the possibility of future damages for the other side's fraud in this case.
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.
Yes, that is exactly what happened. I learned other lessons, many of which I will probably not share outside my family or I will seem cynical. I believe the verdict was just in this case, and I'm not cynical.
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.
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.
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.
Lawyer's fees, court costs, service of process, depositions, etc. were around $10,000. How much time? I'm afraid to think. Some weeks were 40 hours, others were zero. Over 2+ years, it was a lot. Of course, the other side spent as much as $100,000 (or more) and they didn't get the courts to shut down my web page.
I got the verdict last Friday in a case I tried myself in federal court: Verdict, Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc.
I'm not sure whether to be proud or embarrassed, but I did all my legal research using Google. The only paid service I used was Pacer, and that only for 2-3 cases. I bought one case from LexisNexis (Pinkham v. Sara Lee, 8th US Circuit), which cost $9.00. In the end, I was awarded $19,462 in damages (and I defeated six claims against me).
I found most of what I needed at Findlaw.com, www.law.cornell.edu. Specific state cases for Minnesota were at state.mn.us/lawlibrary/. I went to a law library only one time, and they didn't have what I needed, and I never went back.
I did get advice from an attorney on legal procedure (stuff not in any book). I would have used LexisNexis or West Law if it wasn't so overpriced ($9.00 for one webpage? All because the case was too old to be on Pacer, where it would cost about 18 cents). I'm going to try out this guy's service in the future.
(a full chronology of my case is here http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana))
From the introduction of that page: "Vilana sued me for defamation when I claimed they were guilty of copyright infringement (a court ruled they are). They added six more causes of action, including appropriation of name and likeness for posting Vilenchik's photo on this page."
There were lot of claims, trademark infringement was another. There are are details about the appropriation of likeness in the long chronology of the case on that page.
They sued me for six causes of action, seeking one million dollars. The only settlement options required that I replace my gripe webpage with a page endorsing the corporate (who the judge ruled had forged evidence in the case). So you're saying, give up my right to free speech on the internet, because it's trivial? You're currently exercising that right.
I was sued in federal court for violating someone's right to privacy (06-cv-01164, D. Minn). I posted their photo on my website, and they sued to get it removed and get damages. I represented myself, had a trial Nov. 5th, and the verdict was issued last Friday. I won. Yes, I demonize the person who sued me over his exaggerated privacy concerns, which led to a baseless federal lawsuit that tried to quash my free speech rights. Their exaggerated privacy concerns were not harmless.
I've posted about this litigation on Slashdot before, but the verdict is in now so here's the URL again: Gregerson v. Vilana
The plus side of sharing private info on the web: I got to know my wife only after seeing her photo on her geocities page, scoping her out to see what the stranger from the other side of the world, who emailed me asking for a .pdf file, looked like (her formal writing style made her seem middle-aged, but her photo showed she was actually much younger, and we started corresponding).
I posted my own medical information online 10 years ago, which has since helped other patients. I posted info about my late brother's illness, also to help other patients, which it seems to have done. If you reply to this post and attack me over my health problems, or my deceased brother's illness, I don't think that exposes me as a bad person -- it exposes you as a jerk. If you won't hire me because of these things, I -- me, personally -- am OK with that.
I agree, and brought several claims successfully in small claims court under a breach-of-contract argument. But in one case, the defendant's attorney argued that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over anything related to copyright, and the case was dismissed without prejudice to re-file in federal court.
They then sued me for defamation, and I filed a federal copyright lawsuit against them. It went to trial in November (Gregerson v. Vilana). This brilliant move cost them as much as >$100,000 in legal fees, on top of whatever the judge awards me (I'm still waiting for the verdict). I represented myself, with procedural advise from an attorney (still quite expensive).
They tried to claim the photo wasn't mine, they even forged a sales agreement and claimed a non-existent person took the photo. This went nowhere, with the court finding the photo was mine based on my copyright registration (and perhaps eyeballing the disputed photo and the original on my website).
I believe there will be a better system in the future, but I don't know what it will look like. As one example from history of a different approach, some great works of art were created during the depression under the WPA Federal Art Project, all public domain (artists were paid without having to sue).
A corporation took a photo from my website (cgstock.com) and used it in an entire ad campaign (phone book, brochures, newspaper). I saw it, they refused to pay, then sued me for defamation when I wrote about it on my website ( http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana ).
The case went to trial in federal court November 5th, 2007 (case 06-01164, District of MN -- my copyright infringement claim and multiple counterclaims over me "disparaging" them...it was a bench trial and I'm still waiting for the judge's ruling).
I explicitly permit non-commercial use of my photos -- personal web pages, schools, etc. (I require a photo credit, but I would not sue over it). But I greatly object if you are making money from my work, you HAVE A BUDGET to pay me, but are cutting me out of the loop to inflate your profits while I'm earning nothing.
There are excessive penalties for copyright infringement where the infringer does not seek to profit, but (speaking subjectively) I would like the corporation that stole my photos (two photos, actually), lied about it, forged evidence, and tied up in court since 2005, to pay "a billion dollars"...not just a token amount, or a few hundred. The risk of getting caught has to be a deterrent, which (for this company) it was not.
(licensing photos largely relies on professionalism and the honor system; if a local bank tells me they are going to use my photo in 1,000 brochures, I assume they are not using it in a TV campaign, billboards, and 100,000 brochures -- if so, the damages should outweigh the benefit of lying).
I guess this relates to the change in copyright law (to address P2P) that equated infringement without a profit motive = infringement with a profit motive.