Bogus Takedown Notice Lands $150k Settlement In Australian Court 115
Fluffeh writes "Richard Bell, an Australian Film Maker, on a fellowship in New York, produced and directed approximately 18 hours of raw footage for a film with the help of an assistant called Tanya Steele and paid her for these services. Ms Steele, through her American lawyers, sent letters to Mr Bell and his agent claiming that she owned the copyright in the footage and demanding that the trailer be removed from the Internet. She also caused the Vimeo website to remove the trailer. In response, Bell went to the (Australian) courts, which declared him the owner of the copyright in the film, and deemed Steele's threats "unjustifiable". Bell then asked for damages. These were granted in the latest judgment because Bell had lost the opportunity to sell some of his works, which typically cost tens of thousands of dollars, as a result of Steels' threats. The Australian judge awarded over $150,000 in damages plus another $23,000 costs against her."
Shouldn't it be "Judgment"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Deja vu all over again? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Anti-vaxxers abusing DCMA takedown process (Score:5, Informative)
Does this mean that karma will catch up with this idiot too?
Not necessarily. In your case, her victims would have to prove that they lost money as a result. Did they?
In this case of Steele vs. Bell, I know that everyone is making light of the amount of money he won, but this guy Bell really didn't have any problem proving that he was already making $150,000 selling his paintings in just a few of months, so the amount he was awarded is probably just a very conservative estimate of what he could have earned if she had not prevented him from appearing at an art show, and blocked the online promotion of his movie showcasing his story.
Re:refreshing! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually its not!
His 'evidence' consisted of sworn statements of his buddies, and the presumption that he would have sold more paintings. Furthermore the Australian court case said that she hadn't pursued it in court, however she actually filed a lawsuit in NYC, who knows if she or he actually served each other however.
Re:refreshing! (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect he is a complete liar /hr
here are the paintings he claims are up to $60,000 a piece (what a joke)
http://www.kooriweb.org/bell/art.html
http://www.milanigallery.com.au/artwork/her-thous-shalt-not
I've had way better pieces custom made (oil on canvas portraits) for a fraction of the price
here are his real market prices
http://www.findartinfo.com/search/listprices.asp?keyword=113297
And then he claims in one website to have spent $80k on legal services, the court found he only spent $23k on lawyer fees at a rate of $500
Duplicate Post (Score:2, Informative)
This exact same story was posted Wednesday, almost word for word:
http://slashdot.org/submission/2008151/bogus-takedown-notice-lands-150k-settlement-in-australian-court [slashdot.org]
Re:refreshing! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, our version of the MPAA and RIAA got their asses handed to them when they tried to claim one of the local ISPs was responsible for infringement by its users. There have been political rumblings to try and change that situation, but nothing much has come of it. For all that we get a few loony ideas out of the government every once in a while(like the filter which has sort of disappeared into the ether since its grand architect got shafted and the balance of power in the senate stopped relying on the religious right for a vote) the courts are actually pretty good over here.
Oddly enough, for a country with no official bill of rights or even codified freedom of speech, we have a lot more freedom down here than the US does. Our government is slightly more repressive, but they also keep our corporations much more in line so we don't have the oligarchy the US has and which the bill of rights doesn't protect you from. On balance folks have more rights here, even if none of them are written down.