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

[Tailgunner]

This isn't my photo and not sure if the photographer is a member or not.

Anyhow, a photographer recently found out the University of Houston is using one of his photos for their website and pamphlets without his consent. They removed his markings as well. He contacted them about it and they refuse to pay him or stop using the image. He threatened to sue them and they replied they was a Government institute and couldn't be sued!

Whats your take on this?

Photographer Up Against University of Houston Over Photo Use

 

[480sparky]

Too little information in those 4 paragraphs to form any opinion.

 

[tirediron]

Agreed; there are always three sides to every story (theirs, ours and the truth), but I'm confused by the line, "In order to take the university to court, [Olive] would have to convince the Texas Legislature to pass a bill allowing him to sue." Why would a university be 'un-sueable"????

 

[480sparky]

Agreed; there are always three sides to every story (theirs, ours and the truth), but I'm confused by the line, "In order to take the university to court, [Olive] would have to convince the Texas Legislature to pass a bill allowing him to sue." Why would a university be 'un-sueable"????

I'm no lawyer, but if they're a state-operated college, that makes them a state entity. And US laws have evolved the old English maxim, The Crown Can Do No Wrong.

 

[tirediron]

Agreed; there are always three sides to every story (theirs, ours and the truth), but I'm confused by the line, "In order to take the university to court, [Olive] would have to convince the Texas Legislature to pass a bill allowing him to sue." Why would a university be 'un-sueable"????

I'm no lawyer, but if they're a state-operated college, that makes them a state entity. And US laws have evolved the old English maxim, The Crown Can Do No Wrong.

Wow.... Okay, well, in that case, assuming the facts as presented are more-or-less accurate, than the photographer is well and truly boned. That sucks!

 

[480sparky]

Agreed; there are always three sides to every story (theirs, ours and the truth), but I'm confused by the line, "In order to take the university to court, [Olive] would have to convince the Texas Legislature to pass a bill allowing him to sue." Why would a university be 'un-sueable"????

I'm no lawyer, but if they're a state-operated college, that makes them a state entity. And US laws have evolved the old English maxim, The Crown Can Do No Wrong.

Wow.... Okay, well, in that case, assuming the facts as presented are more-or-less accurate, than the photographer is well and truly boned. That sucks!

Again, I'm not a legal eagle, but............ the photographer can still sue. Whether or not a suit can even proceed is yet another thing, let alone going to trial and possibly prevailing.

More likely, the university is betting the photographer won't have the financial capability to take them on.

 

[tirediron]

Like I said... well and truly boned!

 

[SquarePeg]

The photographer would be better off suing them in the court of public opinion. He/she should start a social media campaign to shame them into stopping use of the photo. Sounds like the courts could be an expensive rabbit hole but public pressure is free and effective.

 

[Gary A.]

There are many legal remedies for foul play by a government institution. While it is true that some government entities cannot be sued in civil courts, those are very few. And again, there is always remedies in place and available for corrective action. I have little knowledge of Texas law, but as copyright is federal, I suggest going to a federal court. The fact that the university removed the watermark/credit show a malicious practice which opens up a penalty phase

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think the article linked is in a tourist/travel magazine not a news outlet. Look up and read the Houston Chronicle article, it explains about 'sovereign immunity'. I don't know if that is a state law in Texas or possibly in other states as well.

The university made the photographer an offer. I suppose I'd take that as compensation/payment for past use if it included terms that any further usage would need to be contracted and paid according to the contract.

This has already gotten publicity so I don't know that it would be worth the photographer's time and trouble to pursue it any further for now. There have been other cases related to sovereign immunity in Texas that weren't photography related so I imagine if this keeps happening there will be a need to look at the state law.

 

[smoke665]

Agreed; there are always three sides to every story (theirs, ours and the truth), but I'm confused by the line, "In order to take the university to court, [Olive] would have to convince the Texas Legislature to pass a bill allowing him to sue." Why would a university be 'un-sueable"????

I'm not an attorney but I found this interesting little tidbit -
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) However owners may have injunction relief against particular employees of the State, under the reasoning that when a state official acts in violation of valid federal law, that official is by definition acting outside the scope of his official duties because a State clearly cannot lawfully authorize one of its employees to act in violation of valid federal law. And, an employee of a State is cloaked with the State's immunity only when acting within the scope of his duties. Therefore, an employee of a State who acts in violation of a valid federal law is not immune and may be enjoined from that activity. However it doesn't provide for compensation for the damages already inflicted upon a copyright owner due to past infringement by a State.

 

[Gary A.]

The top part of your statement makes sense as copyright and patents are in the sole jurisdiction of the Feds, thereby a state is immune per standing ... they don't have a dog in the fight. So it must be adjudicated in a Federal court. The second part is interesting cause if you win your case you can go after the state employes for ... ignorance and most likely stupidity.

 

[smoke665]

The top part of your statement makes sense as copyright and patents are in the sole jurisdiction of the Feds, thereby a state is immune per standing ... they don't have a dog in the fight. So it must be adjudicated in a Federal court. The second part is interesting cause if you win your case you can go after the state employes for ... ignorance and most likely stupidity.[/QUOTE

Didn't see any comments about who would have jurisdiction. Since it's an individual I would assume it would be Federal Court, but again, you would be out the expense and no hope of monetary gain. As @SquarePeg said above, the court of social media is free, and could work just as well.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't think there's a question of if he owns copyright to his own photograph. The issue is unauthorized usage - the university apparently did not contract usage of the photo and the photographer did not license usage to the university.

You know, all those sites that say users of the site retain copyright... but are agreeing to allow usage of their photos?? There's a difference between owning the copyright and usage.

I think the issue is the law in Texas about sovereign immunity which seems to hinder pursuit of many sorts of violations, not photography related. It might be worth it for him to keep tabs on what happens with that law, and if there are ever any hearings or proposals to change the law, etc. that's when and where he might have an opportunity present his situation to support why the law needs to be looked at and possibly changed.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Copyright law allows for the use of copyrighted material for education. It is part of fair use.