I was searching for topics and came across this case. I found it interesting because the photographer has his own website where he shares the whole ordeal of this stolen photograph and the ensuing lawsuit over copyright infringement. He kept a timeline of the events and ended up representing himself in court.
To summarize, a photographer in Minneapolis with his own business. He has his own website where he sells his photography. He took a photograph in 2004 of the Minneapolis skyline at night for a local magazine. A year later, May 2005, he opens his new Yellow Pages and there is his picture in an advertisement on the front inside cover. He contacts the company and they claim it's not his. This goes back and forth and he tries to take it to court. He blogs about it on his website. The company in turn files a defamation lawsuit against the photographer.
They go to court. The photographer successfully clears the case against the defamation - nothing he wrote on his website could be proven to be a lie. The defamation lawsuit carried on from the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006. At that same time the photographer started investigating this "supposed" photographer that the company said they paid for the photo. The photographer came to find there was no one of that name. The other photographer was fiction.
In March of 2006 the photographer files his copyright infringement lawsuit. The Company wasn't going away quietly though. By the end of 2006 they filed a counterclaim. The photographer then filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The judge denied his motion to dismiss and allowed the counterclaims to go to trail. This case went back and forth for a year. In August 07 the Photographer was granted a Summary Judgment that finds the other party infringed on the photographer's copyright, and they could proceed to trial.
(I'm exhausted already!) From there, the trial started Nov 07. In Feb of 08 came the Judgment - the court found that the other party obtained the photos from his website and willfully infringed on the photographer's copyright. He was awarded $4,462.00 for actual damages of the particular photo, $10,000 for statutory damages for 'willful' infringement of the photo, and $5,000 for the removal of his copyright symbol on bottom of photo.
The other party would not agree to pay the judgment. (They can do that?) The photographer fought and filed motions through the spring of 2008. They finally settled on a payment plan with the company. On May of 2009 the photographer filed a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the company and the attorneys that represented them.
I found this case very interesting. Great triumph for the little man. Though it makes you realize how hard and long it takes to prevail against a larger company and their attorneys. Many people would probably have given up - either by it taking too long, or they don't have the money for trial/attorney expenses.
Read more at the website - it's way more detailed than what I wrote, but very interesting.
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment