MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Freezingpictures on June 26, 2008, 04:20
-
http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/06/photographer-gets-12-million-verdict.html
;D ;D
-
ouch. I don't think they'll be steeling photos again!
-
She hasn't collected anything yet though - see the comment after this:
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/06/photog-wins-12.html
I agree the judgment is good, but unless the lawyer was working on a contingency fee, the photographer doesn't have the money and does have legal bills...
-
Even though she has not collected anything yet, this is a great start and a good way to scare other would be thieves once they see that eye popping number. The more publication and press this gets the better it is for everyone even if she doesn't collect the whole sum. I am glad to see she registered her work and the result was that she had some re-course in the court of law. Others should take note. It's the only way to collect a large sum.
-
That's good for all of us creators of images, etc.
Canada just had a new law regarding copyright infringement.
Lots of civil libertarians are screaming high hell, but the artists, photographers, writers,etc... are happy.
Copyright of photos,music,art,etc.. in Canada is automatic. ie. you don't have to register.
However, unless there is money to collect for infringement, most cases do not even see the light.
For instance, how do you seek redress from someone who steals your images, music,etc... posting them on the web, and is not only a snivelling thief with a blog but a teenager with not even a nickel in his bank account?
It's a big net, but only the sharks get caught.
-
Judge must have been on drugs.
She wanted $58k for her images which I think was over the top.
And then he calculated an actual major selling point between the images and the revenue of $12million.
Hey I am for the photographer, but the result is a sham.
The actual profit from the houses sold was probably about $1.2 million. Marketing and advertising could lay a claim to about 7% of that. AND that is only if she could prove that is was the images and only the images that created the sale.
BUT for me the worst thing is this mob went out of business. So now around 70 poor suckers are out of work. Most of them probably on minimum wages or just getting by.
The judge really failed in his public interest and justice obligations here.
The photographer should be paid. But not some ridiculous amount of money that causes grief to innocent third parties.
FOR THE RECORD. There isn't a great deal of money in building houses, regardless of where you live. You are lucky to make on average 3% net.
-
No way that verdict will stand. I believe the words are "unjust enrichment" or some such thing. I'd say on appeal they'll be lucky to get their attorneys fees and a few thousand for the work.
-
FOR THE RECORD. There isn't a great deal of money in building houses, regardless of where you live. You are lucky to make on average 3% net.
Very wrong , in the part of Croatia where I live , you can build a house outside the city with all expenses for about 200 000€ the land value for that house is about 150 000 and sell it for way over million , even before is built.
Residential apartments in center are something like 3000€ for m2 and when you sum all expenses the companies are investing between 1000 - 1200€ for building 1 m2.
And you can only buy them if you have connections , pay in advance , so the marketing is not the problem at all.
But I'm speaking only about the situation here where I live , you may be right for other places.
-
No way that verdict will stand. I believe the words are "unjust enrichment" or some such thing. I'd say on appeal they'll be lucky to get their attorneys fees and a few thousand for the work.
Unjust enrichment is a legal term but you're using it incorrectly as it is not applicable to this situation. Unjust enrichment is something the plaintiff sues for when for example you pay someone too much by mistake.
Everyone should remember that 1) this was a default judgment, meaning the defendant didn't show up or mount a defense, 2) while the actual damages won't/can't be overturned the calculation of the consequential damages (i.e. the profits) is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law and will most likely be overturned if the defendants ever show up.
-
Very wrong , in the part of Croatia where I live , you can build a house outside the city with all expenses for about 200 000€ the land value for that house is about 150 000 and sell it for way over million , even before is built.
That's not building homes. That's speculation ...
-
Very wrong , in the part of Croatia where I live , you can build a house outside the city with all expenses for about 200 000€ the land value for that house is about 150 000 and sell it for way over million , even before is built.
That's not building homes. That's speculation ...
Nop , thats a fact , you get around a bit less than 3 times more than you invested , and im talking in "around" numbers cause it depends of various factors and it varies 10% up and down , if you need real prices I can give you those too so you can calculate yourself.
My point is that 3% you mentioned , for "wherever you live" doesn't stand at all , not even close , and If you know anything you know that 3% income in that business is so risky that no one would be doing it. There are always , but always , unplanned expenses that are higher than 3% , so companies would be closing doors one after another.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on microstock.
This photographer will never collect a dime. The corporate defendants are out of business and the other named, personally, will most certainly file bankruptcy given the amount involved if indeed an appeal to the original judgment is not possible. In my prior business life I've held many sizable judgments that turned out to be worth approximately zero, less attorney fees.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on microstock.
This photographer will never collect a dime. The corporate defendants are out of business and the other named, personally, will most certainly file bankruptcy given the amount involved if indeed an appeal to the original judgment is not possible. In my prior business life I've held many sizable judgments that turned out to be worth approximately zero, less attorney fees.
The last line struck me. Zero minus attorney fees, means it cost money to get nothing?
I'm not sure that the photographer will get nothing in this case, but I suspect that the millions in gross income resulting from using the photos, will be overturned. There is a burden of proof that can't be supported. (opinion of someone who doesn't even play a lawyer...)
I can understand the normal fees and usage part, but the rest is excessive, which makes it likely to be overturned, if the bankrupt company even feels the need.
No matter, it's interesting reading.
-
Yep. Zero minus attorney fees = out of pocket.
The last judgment that proved noncollectable did provide one satisfying result. The two guys (father and son) that stiffed me ended up in jail. No money for me. But justice was served in other ways.