$200,000

[KmH]

A record company was found guilty of willful copyright infringement of 2 photos made by Lyle Owerko.
The jury only needed 40 minutes to deliberate and decide how much each infringement was worth.
$100,000 for each infringement (statutory damages).
Bonus!
When willful infringement is demonstrated the infringer usually also gets to pay the copyright owner's attorney fees and court costs, which could easily be another $200,000, if not more.

Boom Artist boxes record label for infringment Biederman Blog

http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Jury-Verdict-.in-Owerko-v-Soul-Temple.pdf

 

[waday]

Good.

Would they accept the same "ignorance" if someone took one of their songs and used it for profit? Probably not.

 

[Braineack]

blatant infringement, yet it cost that one dude 7 million that make a song that sounds similar in vibe/style to a Marvin Gaye one.

 

[Derrel]

Just shows that the jurors didn't like what a big company, with significant resources at its disposal, did when it willingly went to the web and stole a couple pieces of artwork. Not surprising that an east coast jury in a case against a rap and hip-hop music publisher decided to "stick it to the man" for stealing images for commercial gain.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

Damn, that's gotta' sting.

 

[KmH]

The jury could have made it the maximum allowed when an infringement is deemed 'willful' - $150,000 per photo.

Once the record company had been made aware the photos were protected by copyright they could have settled up, money wise and for a lot less, with the copyright owner long before a jury was given the task to make a decision one way or the other.

It makes me wonder about the law firm the record company used.

If you steal a car, or a couple of photos, be prepared to pay some kind of price if you get caught.
A record company claiming "without realizing that they were copyrighted" is ludicrous since copyright is as near and dear to record companies as it is to photographers that register their copyrights.

Stealing photos and then making some thousands of copies of them that are displayed on record albums and promotional merchandise kinda puts another tic mark in the 'dumb criminal' column.

 

[gsgary]

Good.

Would they accept the same "ignorance" if someone took one of their songs and used it for profit? Probably not.

Like Pharrell Williams [emoji3] cant believe it took so long for them to realise it was a rip off of Marvin Gaye

 

[waday]

Good.

Would they accept the same "ignorance" if someone took one of their songs and used it for profit? Probably not.

Like Pharrell Williams [emoji3] cant believe it took so long for them to realise it was a rip off of Marvin Gaye

I'm guessing the lawyers wanted to make sure everything was perfect before proceeding.

 

[gsgary]

Good.

Would they accept the same "ignorance" if someone took one of their songs and used it for profit? Probably not.

Like Pharrell Williams [emoji3] cant believe it took so long for them to realise it was a rip off of Marvin Gaye

I'm guessing the lawyers wanted to make sure everything was perfect before proceeding.

I was mad when I first heard it my partner thought it was great, I said it had been in my collection for years and played her some Marvin Gaye

 

[waday]

Good.

Would they accept the same "ignorance" if someone took one of their songs and used it for profit? Probably not.

Like Pharrell Williams [emoji3] cant believe it took so long for them to realise it was a rip off of Marvin Gaye

I'm guessing the lawyers wanted to make sure everything was perfect before proceeding.

I was mad when I first heard it my partner thought it was great, I said it had been in my collection for years and played her some Marvin Gaye

It's catchy, but the lyrics are a little... out there for me.

It seems like this happens a lot. Musicians typically say what artists influenced their music. I'm guessing a lot of lawyers will start recommending their clients stop this for fear of litigation against their music.