Geek Wins Copyright Lawsuit Against Corporation

Chris Gregerson writes "I work as a stock photographer/web developer. I saw a photo of mine used in Vilana Financial's full-page phone book ad. They wouldn't pay the licensing fee, and I wrote about it online (mirror). They sued me for defamation, producing a sales agreement signed by one ' Michael Zubitskiy' (who they said took the photo and sold the rights to them). I sued them for copyright infringement, and they added claims against me for trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and tortuous interference. There was a trial I'll long remember on the 5th of November, and the judge recently issued her verdict (PDF; mirror). She ruled Vilana Financial forged the sales agreement and willfully infringed my photos, and awarded me $19,462. All claims against me were denied. I represented myself during the litigation."

Well done!

Justice was served, and you got the shysters to pony up 11 times what they would have paid if they'd just purchased the photos in the first place.

People like to dis the "IANAL" posters here, but I have found that a little bit of amateur legal knowledge, even stuff picked up from Judge Judy and the intarweb, can take you a long way in life. At a minimum you should know the basics of how contracts are enforced, what kind of evidence is acceptable in court, and how not to piss of a judge. Common sense will get you most of the way, but you need to know just a bit about the lingo and the process.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

Sometimes I struggle understanding double standards on /.

There is more than one person posting here.

So ripping off a stock photo is Bad and this guy did good by pushing for his rights and winning.

Yes. And more importantly, without a lawyer. IMHO that alone makes it a respectable achievement, regardless of how I might feel about this particular law.

But pirating copyright music via p2p etc is OK because nobody got hurt right.

Not the same thing. This company used his images for profit. What would have been analogous to file sharing might be if the defendant had photocopied the image, put it on his wall for his own personal enjoyment, and given some copies to friends for the same purpose.

Conversely, there does not seem to be much sympathy for people who _sell_ pirated songs or attempt to use them for some purely commercial purpose.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

There is more than one person posting here.

I don't know about you, but I'm just a CmdrTaco shell account that posts random shit from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. I thought everyone else was, too, and we were all just trying to make it look like we're on a successful site so that CmdrTaco can earn lots and lots of money from an evil corporate overlord while being able to DOS people and not get blamed/prosecuted.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

It's all about the perception of who is on the other end, and how they go about enforcing things. Big established guy squashing little guy vs. little guy sticking up for himself against a bigger guy.

Emotional arguments aside, there are some real issues with the way recording companies operate.

Also, there's a significant difference between downloading a song for free and listening to it on your mp3 player and downloading a song by an unsigned artist for free, and then using it on a TV or radio ad, and then trying to claim that the artist sold you the rights when you're queried on it.

Re:THis is Good, but file sharing is Good too?

what are you brain dead? RTFA, he approched them about it and they produced a fraudulent reciept claiming ownership of his work.

do you claim to own the rights to your briteny spears mp3 collection?

they didn't just rip off his work, they claimed to own the copyright on it as well. your missing the point we make time and time on here again as well - RIAA aren't content creators like this guy, they are business thieves that take the majority of the artists cut and sue their fans.

Re:Well done!

Just because it is viewable by the public does not make it public domain. You should leave. You clearly don't know anything about this discussion.

Re:Well done!

taking a photo of a cityscape is hardly a skill.

If the photo had no value, then they wouldn't have felt like using it. There are lots of bad cityscapes; producing a decent one requires at least some skill -- and there is certainly labor involved in taking the time to do it. Your lack of appreciation does not mean there is no skill, or that the photo has no value.

Re:Well done!

What are they being punished for? Using a photo that Chris Gregerson willfully posted on the web?

They're being punished for using it without his consent. Now, I ran a WHOIS search on your linked domain (biodome.org), and am operating under the assumption that you're Canadian, so we'll run with the idea that you're living in a society that respects copyright for the duration of my reply.

His entire business model is only possible because guys with guns are standing behind him saying you have to pay him if you want to use his stuff.

Sure, and I'm totally fine with that. Your country's right to exist hinges on the fact that lots of guys with guns would repel an armed invasion. People are motivated to respect all sorts of laws because guys with guns (the police) will come and get them if they rob a bank, for instance. What's your point?

He's the same kind of vermin that the RIAA and MPAA represent.

Not by a long shot. He made a simple case for an instance of copyright infringement, and didn't appear to paint some morbid picture of the issue being worth millions and millions of dollars. Your position on this point is just idiotic.

In fact, he's worse.. taking a photo of a cityscape is hardly a skill.

I suck at photography, and so do most people I know. The guy's work obviously had some commercial appeal, because it was considered good enough to be in the advertisement. Let's see your portfolio of cityscapes, buddy. If you happen to be okay with other people using for work for whatever purposes they like without compensating you, that's fine by me. Just don't try and force that view on society as a whole.

Re:Well done!

The biggest problem I have with CSI is that they act like they have unlimited funds to solve a crime. Every man-hour spent on a case is billed. Every test they do costs money. At the end of the day, do you really think they'll run a $100k tab to solve the murder of a hooker or bum?

The sad fact is that after a few days, most cases are sent to the bottom of the pile. Not due to lack of evidence, but due to lack of funds.

Re:Well done!

And they all take some liberties with the computer side of things!

As someone who trained for a year to become a Lawyer, I find Law and Order to be at least partially gratifying for the way things are put down in the show. It's not entirely accurate but it's not entirely inaccurate as well. The same applies to CSI or Numb3rs... nobody likes to sit by the geeky things so sure it's not all canon, but it puts the right spin on things.

Note I used to date a forensic scientist for the Australian police, watching a show like that with her was like listening to Bill Gates tell me how awesome Linux is ("that's not right!", "we can't do that!!!", "BULLLLLSHIT!" etc.).

My $0.02 AU, Ignore at will

Re:Well done!

Numb3rs has been reviewed by one of MIT's publications because it is so factual about its math in many cases. Many of the cases (at least in the first season) were based on actual cases solved using those actual math techniques.

Sure, they dramatize the whole thing, and you don't watch code-monkeys plugging away at computers for hours at a time, but the math itself is quite solid and the data input and extrapolations based on that math are based in reality.

Picture

Could you post which picture it was? Preferably with any watermarks removed, and in the highest resolution you have, just for...informational purposes ;-)

Photographers and IP

Now, let me start by saying that what the "large faceless corporation" did in this case was clearly wrong. No matter how you feel about an artists' work and their ability to charge what they want for it, telling them to piss off and using their work anyway, then lying to a judge about it is not only wrong but stupid.

That being said, I am recently finding myself unable to wrap my brain around how photographers charge for their work and how they can justify their business model.

Case in point: I'd like to get my kids' pictures taken. No print ad campaigns or web advertisements, just pictures of my kids, maybe myself and my wife. In the past we've used a place that takes really nice pictures, but they insist that the only way you can get their prints is to purchase print packages from them. I understand they are trying to make back their money invested in the initial sitting, but I can't wrap my head around how they are trying to take an old business model (selling photographic prints) and apply it to this new, digital age. All of their cameras are digital, but they won't sell me the RAW digital files, not for any price. However, they also delete the copies after 90 days, so they take digital pictures, print me out copies, then (presumably) destroy the originals.

Now, I'm by no means a photographic professional, but I know my way around Photoshop, and can think of dozens of things I'd like to do with these pictures, maybe now, maybe 20 years from now, I don't know. What I'd really like is a photographer whom I could pay for his/her time and the use of their equipment to produce pictures that I can do whatever the hell I want with. I've called around and can't find anyone who operates in such a way. The photographers I talked to all said I was nuts to be looking for such a service, because they were unwilling to enter into an "open ended contract" whereby they lose control over their own work. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. In all honesty, I know how much I spent on the print packages I got in the past, and I'd be willing to pay a premium above and beyond that for such a service. Nobody is losing money, and in fact some photographer could get more of my money for providing less of a service. (i.e. maybe they don't have to print so many prints up front because I know that I can get more printed later somewhere else, or maybe even with them if their work is good and prices are fair.)

I design and install computer systems for a living. People pay for my time. Let's say I set up the network for some small startup operation called "Facebook." (I didn't, purely hypothetical) That operation takes off using the backbone that I set up, becoming one of the fastest growing and most successful business on the Internet. Guess how much of that $15 billion I'd see. (Or expect to see) ZERO. Never mind that it was my genius design that enabled them to do what it was they were trying to do. I went in, did a service, and I was done. Why is photography inherently different?

"Must turn over all email..."

From the web page of the /. hero of the hour:
Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan ruled that Vilana cannot copy my computer hard drives and I don't have to produce email between myself and my attorney. However, I must turn over email with the terms "Vilana", "Vilenchik", "Zubitskiy", "Kazaryan", "Walker", etc. I sent Vilana's attorney a DVD with over 500 emails...they can sift through my private thoughts and feelings about their misconduct as described to my parents, sisters, and friends. Note: at trial in November, 2007, Vilana's attorney actually cross-examined me on these emails, which did not appear to prove anything except my own version of events.

Note to self: if ever thinking of getting involved in litigation, seed potential keywords into an email spam generating engine of some kind. "All emails with terms (keyword)? Certainly - here's 8G of text for you to read..."

Congratulations to Mr. Gregerson. Reading the timeline shows it was a long, hard battle that many would have given up on.

No you didn't.

The story's author did, for having the balls to stand up to a thief by himself.

If I told you what I think you were, this post would be modded down as flamebait.

Re:No you didn't.

The Slashdot community has this amusing mix of copyright haters and copyright lovers. See, we're supposed to be all geeks, so if someone takes (pardon me, "duplicates") our stuff, it's not longer "copyright is not theft!" but rather "get a goddamn rope!"

C//

Re:The copyright holder wins

The story here is that the defendant tried to pull some hard-core legalistic intimidation bullshit in response to the original lawsuit, and the plaintiff still stood his ground and pushed forward.

Nevertheless, if the story were in essence reversed and it was about a faceless company suing an unrepresented guy and getting a hefty award of damages for some relatively minor IP infringement, we'd get a bunch of bearded geek hippies rambling on about how "information wants to be free" and "I don't believe in imaginary property" and so on.

Not disagreeing that this is a good outcome, or with the bearded geek hippies per se. Just sayin'.

Re:Someone used your artistic work without paying

Apples to oranges, really ... this guy had incontrovertible evidence that his rights had been stepped upon, the court agreed with him. The RIAA operates to a much lower standard, both in terms of the "evidence" they present, and their reprehensible courtroom behavior. If this guy had manufactured some evidence out of thin air and used it to sue someone at random, I'd say you'd be closer to the mark.

Keep in mind also, that the creeps who ripped him off used his work to make a substantial sum of money. Indeed, they pretty much pirated his work in the legal sense of the term (this wasn't for personal use, it was for profit.) If the RIAA were suing someone that took a copyrighted work, put their name on it and sold it as their own, I don't think many people here would complain.

Reply from author

Someone used your artistic work without paying you...and you sued them? Interesting the first few posts are of support, wonder what the reponse would be if this story was about the RIAA.

I personally make a distinction between non-commercial/educational use and use for commercial gain (the RIAA goes after private individuals who shared music with other private individuals non-commercially). I went after a business who had a budget for photography, but cut me out of the loop to increase their profit margin at my expense. I barely make a living at photography, which is why I was pro-se (I couldn't afford an attorney).

I don't know what the fix is for the current copyright system, but anything that allows content creators to earn a living (without having to sue people) is fine with me.

Re:so this is a good thing?

There are several differences here:

1. The evil corporation started playing hardball first.
2. The evil corporation was infringing the copyright for profit.
3. The evil corporation provably distributed copies of the copyrighted material, and the number of copies could be proven as well.
4. The evil corporation appears to have undertaken actions to attempt to defraud both the copyright holder and the court by giving testimony that a person sold the copyright to the corporation. (The ruling expresses doubt that this person even exists.)
5. The damages claimed were not ridiculous given the extent of the violations, substantially less than the amount available at law.

Re:so this is a good thing?

Patents are far more evil than copyrights

Patents are for a fixed 20-year term, and must be laid out in specificity for the good of the general public upon expiration. Patents are subject to a lengthy examination process to prove that they are novel and non-trivial extensions of the current knowledge.

By contrast, copyright is for the life of the author plus (currently) 70 years. Thanks to our Congress, everything created since 1923 could potentially still be protected. After 80 years of Mickey Mouse, he is STILL not in the public domain. Walt Disney croaked in 1966, and his copyright will last until at least 2024. See this article [findlaw.com] for more details.

Trademarks are designed to protect your interest in your "brand", and to prevent customer confusion. They are inherently a good thing.

I would posit that 1) trademarks are good for companies and the consumer; 2) patents are mostly a good system (with the possible exclusion of business method patents), and 3) that copyright is much more heinous.

Re:Good!

Guy Fawkes, you philistine!

The photographer represented himself, so he didn't pay any lawyers.

The defendants took the money that they saved by not paying the photographer in the first place and spent it on lawyers. Then they got to pay the photographer anyway. I love it when business plans have to take regular people into account.

Re:$19,462

Sorry, no, he was a fool.

If he had had a lawyer, he would have:

a) Been awarded a lot more money
b) Stuck the defendants with attorney's fees

Re:Grab their profits too?

After reading your disclaimer, I think I may be experiencing severe side effects such as headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and death. Must be reacting with my MAOI inhibitors or something.

Re:You're Very Lucky, and Don't Try That Again

Reply from the author:

You are extremely lucky that you had a judge who wanted to help you...you were a mega big - but lucky - fool this time

The judge absolutely did NOT help me, and I didn't have the money for an attorney (they sued me for defamation first, so I had no choice but to litigate).

I may have been lucky, but I prevailed because I worked hard for two years and persisted. I worked much harder that the other side, and knew more about this area of law than their attorneys.

...you are probably going to convince some other poor slob to try this...

I will agree with you I should issue a disclaimer "Don't try this yourself". There are plenty of pro-se litigants who don't know what they are doing, a few who do, and I suspect that won't change.