University of Houston Illegally uses image and doesn't care!

[vintagesnaps]

I don't think it was for educational use, seems like it was for public relations/promotional uses. It wasn't for a textbook, it was for a brochure.

 

[Advanced Photo]

A brochure for the purpose of promoting education.
Some things, (like education and public debate) are a little more important than an artist getting a buck for copyrighted material use.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I've been a teacher, and am an artist/photographer, there's a difference in the purpose but being used for education for promotional reasons shouldn't mean using someone's work without permission/compensation. But what seems to need to be addressed is the issue of not being compensated for his work and not being able to pursue that because of the sovereign immunity (which I haven't heard about so don't know if that exists here or not).

 

[unpopular]

The Supreme Court pretty much eliminated damages for both copyright and patent infringement by a state agency under the Sovereign Immunity theory (yet another reason I believe the court is overstepping it's role in making law instead of ruling on constitutionality)

DISCLAIMER - The following is intended as conjecture and is not provided for informational, educational or legal purposes. I am not an attorney.

This is hardly the case here. The issue of state immunity *is* a constitutional issue, is discussed in the eleventh amendment (see U.S. Copyright Office: State Sovereign Immunity), which basically says that citizens from of one state cannot sue another state without it's permission, and by extension states cannot be sued in federal court by individuals per Parden v. Terminal Rail Company (FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.).

What I think @smoke665 is referring to here is that in the late 20th century a number of clarifications were made that explicitly excludes states from immunity in copyright cases, known as Copyright Remedy Clarification Act [CRCA]. Unfortunately constitutional law supersedes legislation (and it should) and the court found that this was unconstitutional - why are states immune from some federal lawsuits, yet not others? (U.S. Copyright Office: State Sovereign Immunity)

I think that the issue is more in the language of the 11th amendment, rather than in the courts decision to uphold it. In fact, I think that if the court had decided otherwise it would have been very much legislating from the bench, as there is really no rational reason to assume that CRCA was constitutional in the first place.

U.S. Copyright Office: State Sovereign Immunity does cover "possible solutions" to address the problem, but I have not read this yet.

 

[smoke665]

DISCLAIMER - The following is intended as conjecture and is not provided for informational, educational or legal purposes. I am not an attorney.

I was to lazy to type all of your disclaimer so I'll just say ditto. LOL Though I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express before.

The US Government specifically waived it's Sovereign Immunity protection from copyright infringement in 28 USC 1498 (b) and provided a path for action through the US Court Of Federal Claims. It also limited liability for claims to "reasonable and minimum statutory damages" and prevents recovery of legal fess. (go figure).

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (1990) sought to impose the same waiver of Sovereign Immunity on the states as the Feds. This is where the courts have intervened based on elements of the 11th and 14th amendments, to shut them down, and leaving the owners of both copyrights and patents screwed as to enforcing their rights.

While it can be argued that Sovereign Immunity can still extend to the state in the event an employee violates federal law, as it is presumed the state did not grant, nor instruct the employee to violate federal law. Said immunity does not extend to the employee where they have acted beyond the scope of their authority (violating federal law). Which is why you may still have a case against the employee (individually) even for an employee related act, so long as the state is not responsible for any claim rendered.

 

[Advanced Photo]

If you don't want images used without compensation, don't make it possible by posting them on the internet. The best offense is a strong defense. Defend your images and make sure this doesn't happen, then you never have to worry. I never post images I may one day want to sell, and that's all my images. lol

 

[Overread]

The best offense is a strong defense. Defend your images

Challenging copyright abuse through the legal system IS defending your rights and your photography. Not posting it online or not making it publicly visible isn't so much protecting as side-stepping the problem.

Sure it works, but at the same time its terribly limiting to the individual. Furthermore with the legal protections we have it shouldn't be an issue; one should have sufficient protection to recoup lost income and to protect the copyright of their creative work.

 

[Advanced Photo]

The best offense is a strong defense. Defend your images

Challenging copyright abuse through the legal system IS defending your rights and your photography. Not posting it online or not making it publicly visible isn't so much protecting as side-stepping the problem.

Sure it works, but at the same time its terribly limiting to the individual. Furthermore with the legal protections we have it shouldn't be an issue; one should have sufficient protection to recoup lost income and to protect the copyright of their creative work.

Should, but you don't always. If they can't steal it it won't be stolen. Simple fact.

 

[astroNikon]

I didn't read the article, but I find it odd that educational institutions go to the end of the earth to protect copyright their school logo and everything else they do, and yet just grab things to use as their own.

 

[Advanced Photo]

The brochure was made by another party and sold to the school.

 

[unpopular]

The brochure was made by another party and sold to the school.

That changes everything (well, maybe), and would explain why the university isn't responding.

 

[tirediron]

A brochure for the purpose of promoting education.
Some things, (like education and public debate) are a little more important than an artist getting a buck for copyrighted material use.

Ummmm... really? Advertising isn't education and with the prices they appear to be charging, they've got not claim to being a "poor school", and the removal of someone's watermark is certainly NOT covered by fair use.

 

[tirediron]

The brochure was made by another party and sold to the school.

That changes everything (well, maybe), and would explain why the university isn't responding.

I wonder if it does... I don't know.

 

[unpopular]

I agree. This is something that has always confused me. When hire an ad agency to provide media we assume that the media that they are providing is legally obtained, and the party that actually did the copying in the first place was the ad agency. No doubt that if this person were serious about this lawsuit, his or her attorney would have sued the ad agency along with the university.

At the same time, if the University insisted on using this image and explicitly instructed the designer to remove the name, that would further complicate matters. As might licensing.

 

[Advanced Photo]

They used to have a competition for the brochure layout and let individuals submit their entries so if that is how it is still done, it wasn't an ad agency and it was just a private graphic artist that won the competition. No deep pockets there to go after if the photographer is just looking for a payday so he wanted to sue the institution (State).