Suing photo thief - for how much money?

[Plato]

I say if a person has high quality unwatermarked photos available on the web, then they're too stupid to afford a lawyer anyways.

You just got added to many people's "IGNORE" list on the basis of your, uh...... contribution.

Not mine. The point he is rather tactlessly trying to make is that it's kind of dumb take a full size, full quality image you want to sell, and make it freely available online.

We don't know that it was full sized or full quality or that the OP wanted to sell it. In fact, we don't even know that it was made "freely available online." All we know as fact is that the photo was used repeatedly without permission.

 

[icassell]

A lawsuit is a VERY expensive undertaking with no guarantees for success ... especially when you are dealing with an offshore company (unless they are headquartered in the USA). Obviously you need to talk to a lawyer in this setting, but he will probably tell you that your chances aren't good (after charging you for the consultation).

 

[Shutter_to_think]

You just got added to many people's "IGNORE" list on the basis of your, uh...... contribution.

You gauge a man by the QUALITY of his friends, not by the QUANTITY. :mrgreen:

We don't know that it was full sized or full quality or that the OP wanted to sell it. In fact, we don't even know that it was made "freely available online." All we know as fact is that the photo was used repeatedly without permission.

Read the OP's statement. "Downloaded and printed in promotional material"
Right. I always use watermarked screenshots in our promo material.

FWIW, I was not trying to imply the OP was stupid. I thought the situation was hypothetical. wait..... maybe not hypothetical, but in the third person.
Crap. anyways, I apologize for my "tactless" comment.

_

 

[epp_b]

We don't know that it was full sized or full quality or that the OP wanted to sell it. In fact, we don't even know that it was made "freely available online." All we know as fact is that the photo was used repeatedly without permission.

Exactly how else would the company in question obtained the photo without the OP knowing about it?

 

[Plato]

We don't know that it was full sized or full quality or that the OP wanted to sell it. In fact, we don't even know that it was made "freely available online." All we know as fact is that the photo was used repeatedly without permission.

Exactly how else would the company in question obtained the photo without the OP knowing about it?

Perhaps they hired a "second story" specialist to break into his home and copy it directly from his hard drive to a CD.

 

[Plato]

You just got added to many people's "IGNORE" list on the basis of your, uh...... contribution.

You gauge a man by the QUALITY of his friends, not by the QUANTITY. :mrgreen:

We don't know that it was full sized or full quality or that the OP wanted to sell it. In fact, we don't even know that it was made "freely available online." All we know as fact is that the photo was used repeatedly without permission.

Read the OP's statement. "Downloaded and printed in promotional material"
Right. I always use watermarked screenshots in our promo material.

FWIW, I was not trying to imply the OP was stupid. I thought the situation was hypothetical. wait..... maybe not hypothetical, but in the third person.
Crap. anyways, I apologize for my "tactless" comment.

_

Speaking about "stupid," perhaps you can explain why those words mean that the photo was high quality and without a watermark. Perhaps you can also explain why it's physically impossible for the company in question to have removed the watermark.

 

[bp4life71]

my willy itches.

 

[Garbz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you suffer no actual damages from this, and as such all you get a punitive damages, and it's not for you to decide how much, that's for the jury.

(I don't know much about American law)

 

[skieur]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you suffer no actual damages from this, and as such all you get a punitive damages, and it's not for you to decide how much, that's for the jury.

(I don't know much about American law)

How much would most pros charge for taking a photo with the right to a distribution of 40,000,000? That would be the actual damages. Another issue may be that you do not want your photo promoting a particular company and they had no right to assume otherwise.

In Canada and therefore it is probably the same in Australia, the plaintiff in a law suit (which I currently am), determines the amount that they are going after. Negotiations usually occur after Discovery by the prosecution and defense lawyers and an out-of-court settlement is decided, which goes to a judge for approval. A very small percentage actually get to trial and it may be, by either judge alone, or by jury.

skieur

 

[Rifleman1776]

I am a writer and questions of plagiarism, copyright, etc. come up frequently.
In the U.S., the general rule is that any original creative work automatically has copyright 'protection' under the law. Nice words but means nothing in practice.
To get enforcement of copyright, one must register the work with the Library of Congress. Then it is protected and legal action will usually be successful. Without that, judges usually just toss out of court.
I guess, the bottom line is that life can be tough.

 

[Shutter_to_think]

Speaking about "stupid," perhaps you can explain why those words mean that the photo was high quality and without a watermark. Perhaps you can also explain why it's physically impossible for the company in question to have removed the watermark.

#1 - How many companies go through the trouble of removing watermarks from low quality images to use in promo material? Not a long lasting one that's for sure

#2 - My stupid remark wasn't intentionally directly at someone, it appears yours is.
I also apologized when I thought people may have taken it the wrong way.

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Wait...... sorry, that quote was from the REAL Plato

_

 

[Rekd]

I have a ham sammich.

 

[inTempus]

I say if a person has high quality unwatermarked photos available on the web, then they're too stupid to afford a lawyer anyways.

_

I guess you've never heard of tools like Alien Skin Blow Up 2.

If you post an image of a reasonable size and resolution, someone can grab it and blow it up to a useful size for print. It's not all that difficult.

You probably didn't know this, so I won't call you "stupid". As a matter of fact, I don't see any point in calling other posters on the board stupid.

 

[musicaleCA]

And then there's Genuine Fractals. That program is just freaky for enlargements. O.O

 

[KmH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you suffer no actual damages from this, and as such all you get a punitive damages, and it's not for you to decide how much, that's for the jury.

(I don't know much about American law)

Registration allows suit for statutory damages. Statutory damages are capped though. If your attorney can show the infringement was willful, the courts cannot award more than $150,000 per image, plus court costs and attorney fees. If the court is convinced the infringement was a simple mistake the minimum award is $250 per image.

The plaintif has the option of seeking actual damages. Those are harder to prove but the court can award more than $150,000 per image.

There was a case not to long ago: a Realty brokerage house infringed 6 of images they had commisioned from a photographer to use in a brochure of some very high end properties in Florida.

The photographer sought actual damages and also proved wilfiul intent; so the court awarded all the profits the bokerage had realized from the sale of the properties: $12,000,000 USD plus court costs and attorney fees, another $3.8 million USD.

The defendant promtly filed for bankrupcy protection.