The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: Bob Larter on 18 Oct 2009 08:40 Red E. Kilowatt wrote: > Bob Larter wrote: >> Alfred Molon wrote: >>> Follow-up article on that infringement case which Getty brought to >>> court: >>> http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty >>> >>> see also >>> http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10367 >>> >>> 2000 GBP paid to Getty, 24000 GBP total expense >> Frankly, I think they got what they deserved. They stole an image, got >> caught, & they paid the price. > > It would have been a lot cheaper if they had paid the original demand, > which wasn't that bad. It only got real expensive for the infringer > after they thought they might be able to avoid paying. Once Getty > started preparing a case they were determined to make an example out of > the infringer. Exactly. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Stuckle on 18 Oct 2009 08:45 Ray Fischer wrote: > NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >> copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >> for damages plus court cost and legal fees. > > It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive > maliciousness. > That's your opinion. The courts differ. As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase significantly when you do something wrong. But that's the way they should be - otherwise there is no deterrent. People would pay only if caught, and then they would only pay what the original price would be. The bottom line is - don't steal pictures. And if you do, don't get caught! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 13:59 Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >>> copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >>> for damages plus court cost and legal fees. >> >> It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive >> maliciousness. > >That's your opinion. The courts differ. The courts are about upholding the law, not about dispensing justice. >As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase >significantly when you do something wrong. That's the lawyer's argument. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 14:00 NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >: Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >: >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >: >> >: >> >: >> >The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. >: >> >: >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the >licensable >: >> photo isn't ridiculous? >: > >: >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the >: >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. >: >: The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks >: like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. > >Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more >(sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The >court makes a judgment on what equitable. "I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 14:01
michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >> >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable >> photo isn't ridiculous? > >Not if they only ever expected to ever catch say 1 in 100 copyright infringers, >then no it isn't. Since when is one person supposed to be responsible for the actions of others? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |