Geek Wins Copyright Lawsuit Against Corporation 616
Chris Gregerson writes "I work as a stock photographer/web developer. I saw a photo of mine used in Vilana Financial's full-page phone book ad. They wouldn't pay the licensing fee, and I wrote about it online (mirror). They sued me for defamation, producing a sales agreement signed by one ' Michael Zubitskiy' (who they said took the photo and sold the rights to them). I sued them for copyright infringement, and they added claims against me for trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and tortuous interference. There was a trial I'll long remember on the 5th of November, and the judge recently issued her verdict (PDF; mirror). She ruled Vilana Financial forged the sales agreement and willfully infringed my photos, and awarded me $19,462. All claims against me were denied. I represented myself during the litigation."
Grab their profits too? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now that you've won spectacularly, is it possible to pursue those damages?
Also, this caught my attention: "However, Vilenchik's deposition testimony was that Zubitskiy called him at the following number: 612-963-2900. What would make this phone number particularly easy to recall eludes the Court."
Assuming that 612 is the local area code and doesn't need to be memorized, the rest of the number is quite easy. 963... geometrically, it makes a nice line up the right side of the keypad, and the 2900 is trivial to remember as well. Perhaps 29 has some special significance and, even if not, how hard is it to remember that? Regardless, the rest of the defendant's is basically BS anyways but that point stuck out as being not implausible.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
The photographer represented himself, so he didn't pay any lawyers.
The defendants took the money that they saved by not paying the photographer in the first place and spent it on lawyers. Then they got to pay the photographer anyway. I love it when business plans have to take regular people into account.
Re:No you didn't. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who trained for a year to become a Lawyer, I find Law and Order to be at least partially gratifying for the way things are put down in the show. It's not entirely accurate but it's not entirely inaccurate as well. The same applies to CSI or Numb3rs... nobody likes to sit by the geeky things so sure it's not all canon, but it puts the right spin on things.
Note I used to date a forensic scientist for the Australian police, watching a show like that with her was like listening to Bill Gates tell me how awesome Linux is ("that's not right!", "we can't do that!!!", "BULLLLLSHIT!" etc.).
My $0.02 AU, Ignore at will
Re:so this is a good thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Watermark removed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it really worth the effort to do that? I could go out and take some decent photos for less effort than it would take me to get those watermarks off. Maybe that's just because I know more about photography than unscrupulous image processing.
Re:Well done! (Score:1, Interesting)
Photographers and IP (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, I am recently finding myself unable to wrap my brain around how photographers charge for their work and how they can justify their business model.
Case in point: I'd like to get my kids' pictures taken. No print ad campaigns or web advertisements, just pictures of my kids, maybe myself and my wife. In the past we've used a place that takes really nice pictures, but they insist that the only way you can get their prints is to purchase print packages from them. I understand they are trying to make back their money invested in the initial sitting, but I can't wrap my head around how they are trying to take an old business model (selling photographic prints) and apply it to this new, digital age. All of their cameras are digital, but they won't sell me the RAW digital files, not for any price. However, they also delete the copies after 90 days, so they take digital pictures, print me out copies, then (presumably) destroy the originals.
Now, I'm by no means a photographic professional, but I know my way around Photoshop, and can think of dozens of things I'd like to do with these pictures, maybe now, maybe 20 years from now, I don't know. What I'd really like is a photographer whom I could pay for his/her time and the use of their equipment to produce pictures that I can do whatever the hell I want with. I've called around and can't find anyone who operates in such a way. The photographers I talked to all said I was nuts to be looking for such a service, because they were unwilling to enter into an "open ended contract" whereby they lose control over their own work. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. In all honesty, I know how much I spent on the print packages I got in the past, and I'd be willing to pay a premium above and beyond that for such a service. Nobody is losing money, and in fact some photographer could get more of my money for providing less of a service. (i.e. maybe they don't have to print so many prints up front because I know that I can get more printed later somewhere else, or maybe even with them if their work is good and prices are fair.)
I design and install computer systems for a living. People pay for my time. Let's say I set up the network for some small startup operation called "Facebook." (I didn't, purely hypothetical) That operation takes off using the backbone that I set up, becoming one of the fastest growing and most successful business on the Internet. Guess how much of that $15 billion I'd see. (Or expect to see) ZERO. Never mind that it was my genius design that enabled them to do what it was they were trying to do. I went in, did a service, and I was done. Why is photography inherently different?
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, they dramatize the whole thing, and you don't watch code-monkeys plugging away at computers for hours at a time, but the math itself is quite solid and the data input and extrapolations based on that math are based in reality.
Re:$19,462 (Score:1, Interesting)
A judgment like this restores my faith in the justice system, that it doesn't exist for pure revenge, but instead still exists to make all parties whole.
Re:$19,462 (Score:1, Interesting)
B) So if he hired an attorney, he could have sued for attorney's fees, and MAYBE received it... and then given it to the attorney. Or if he didn't get the attorney's fees, he would have had to pay out of his own pocket. I don't see how either outcome would have benefited him.
Re:$19,462 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No you didn't. (Score:1, Interesting)
By copying at will, value (potential revenue) is stolen from me. I did have it, now I don't.
Re:so this is a good thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Er, unless I'm missing something, that appears to be a wildly inaccurate reading. Vilana Financial and Vilana Realty are certainly not a one man outfit [vilanafinancial.com]. According to the verdict they do have one person as principal shareholder, but that's really not the same thing.
Now try actually collecting. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually making them pony up the cash is the hard part.
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not really seeing a lot of difference between one and two with the exception that you seem to think that by allowing people to view copyrighted images on the web the photographer has somehow given up all rights to those images. There are plenty of places where you can find free or very low-cost royalty-free images for commercial use. I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect to be paid for your work, especially if someone else is making a profit off of its use.
Uh, why should you be able to just take any picture off the web and use it for commercial use (i.e. advertising) that makes you money and not pay the artist whose work you're benefiting from? He's not charging you to look at the photos, he's charging you if you're going to use them. This seems a prefectly reasonable use of copyright.
As long as you have a valid license contract, you pay the artist, and you don't violate the terms of the license agreement there would be no grounds to sue.
Again, what do you have against artists making money off their work? The photographer in this case didn't exactly go scouring the world for copyright infringement. The defendant in this case used the photo in an inside cover ad on a phonebook in the same city where the photographer lives. It's not as if the website they took it from doesn't make it very clear the image requires a license agreement for use. The damages awarded here are for punitive purposes to prevent people from just using the photos until they get caught and have to only pay the original price.
Clearly he was offering something they wanted or they wouldn't have used it. There are plenty of places to find free or cheap royalty-free images on the internet that would've avoided this whole issue.
Re:Well done! (Score:2, Interesting)
I suspect that the camera's and the recording devices are much more powerful than the screen.
Re:laughable (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now try actually collecting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Mod up, please (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too? (Score:5, Interesting)
What part of "copy" in "copyright" do you not understand? There is all the difference in the world between a copy of a file and a hyperlink. At least Sweden has had the common sense to understand that, although who knows when they'll buckle to the *AAs.
OTOH you're in good company with the plaintiffs in the 2600 DeCSS case [wikipedia.org], which I still find to be one of the most disappointing court decisions of modern times. "In particular the Second Circuit ruled that linking on the Internet...could be restrained in ways that might not be constitutional for traditional media" which is why it was perfectly fine for the NYT to print the hyperlink (which it did). So if thepiratebay printed a monthly magazine of torrent hyperlinks, that apparently would be legal even in the U.S. And possibly even if they displayed the links on their website with no "HREF" around them - would that make you happier? Or are you for censorship of non-copyrighted information as well?
Re:Photographers and IP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
Way back when (say 1979 or 1980) when I was in High School, I took a forensic evidence internship at John Jay college in NYC. Intereesting class with LOTS of stories, but I can still remember one evening in the lab, when it got hot, and most of the guys in the class took off their sports jackets (I had never really thought about WHY everyone wore a sports jacket to class). About 3/4s of the class were police officers furthering their education, and they were all carrying under their jackets. I think there were about 3 of us in the room who were NOT visibly carrying a firearm that night. Me? Because I can't - the other 2, who knows.
So I think you'll find that a lot of the forensic "geeks" out there are/were actual patrol officers at one time
Re:No you didn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am absolutely not a copyright abolitionist (though I do think terms should be reduced to something more reasonable -- scale of 20 years or so) -- but to argue in the direction that no art would be created without copyright is fallacious. Less art, certainly... but that's a price some people may be willing to pay.
Re:No you didn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus spake Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
I've gone along with the party line of "unauthorized copying != piracy" for years, but it looks like we're in the wrong on this one.
Re:Mod up, please (Score:3, Interesting)
I do this all the time, The strange part is large companies are bigger deadbeats than people. There are lots of Collection agencies more than happy to get 40-50% of the original bill. works great and companies usually start responding faster as they are bigger than you are.
Re:Well done! (Score:3, Interesting)
If you RTFJudgement, you'll note that:
And given that Defendant is clearly a Russian Bratva whose own employees and associates testified against his character, it'll almost certainly go to collections and at best Plaintiff will see 10% of the award.
Not looking so smart now, is it?
Re:No you didn't. (Score:2, Interesting)
That argument is bogus. We do not compensate people simply because we make a profit off of their work in other areas, so why is photography special? When McDonalds spends two years and a chunk of cash to research the ideal location for a new franchise, Burger King doesn't pay them for that hard work when they open up next door. If the gas station next door gets more sales from the increased traffic, they don't pay the restaurants.
There are many good reasons for having copyrights, but none of them are about preventing people from profiting off the work of others without consent or compensation. Did the photographer in the article track down the architects and developers of those buildings in the image and compensate them? Of course not; he took a photo and sold it, profiting off their hard work without consent. Is there anything morally, ethically, or legally wrong with doing so? Not at all.
Copyrights are good. It's just your argument that is bad.
Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just so the less technically savvy people who don't get the joke don't get confused: a compressed image file can be opened as many times as you'd like without losing any quality. It's only when editing and recompressing the image do you take the detail hit.
So don't be afraid to run those slideshows of your kids on your desktop. Go ahead and print out as many copies as you like. As long as you're not doing touchup work after every iteration, you're cool.
Re:No you didn't. (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that artists regularly get hosed in this industry is still not, to me, a valid defense of not paying for content you want to hear. There are tons of indie bands that I support by buying their $5 album from their websites, and there is no label involved. I don't see why anyone who wouldn't gank a $5 promo CD at a show would download the artist's music without paying for it; the idea that "Well, in the one case, you STOLE a CD!" is nonsensical.