RebeccaAPhotography said:What are you talking about? You might want to elaborate more... Plus actually put the photo itself in the thread not the link
So my question is who would be gaining exposure?
Absolute rot. The only way he can say that image cost $6700 is if he only took that single picture and immediately destroyed all of the equipment. Other than costs associtated with that day, the cost of the equipment is amortized over it's life and divided by the number of images taken. I agree completely with the sentiment, but saying that it cost him that much money to take the picture removes all credibility from an otherwise reasonable statement.
Oops! Time to find a better lawyer, because sending a bill could be a very expensive mistake.
Actually, I think he'd have to jump into the drink with allof his equipment for the price to get anywhere near that, lolThe article is a good read, but a gross exaggeration also... The comments that follow are good ones as well.
Pixels aren't free, but like one comment said... he'd have to throw all of that gear into the drink when he was done in order for THAT image to cost that much.
1. How do you or your attorney know they only used the stolen photo that one time? What if they also had 300,000 brochures printed up with the photo in them, or used the photo in a number of other types of media?
2. By sending a bill the attorney just pretty much locked down the amount of actual damages the copyright owner could seek in court.
There is no limit to the amount of actual damages that can be awarded. But, actual damages have to be proven. Statutory damamges don't.
So, statutory damages. If the copyright owner's attorney can prove the infringement was willful, the court is allowed the discretion of awarding up to $150,000 per infringed image, plus all court costs and attorney fees. (See USC 17 §504 · Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf)
Help! I’ve Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney