>
> But this is all US. The enqiry is from a Canadian about a Turkish
> site. Probably time for a lawyer.
> --
> Emily L. Ferguson
Once again, folks, the bottom line is the following:
"What is the cost/benefit of taking legal action?"
-----------------------------------------------
So let's do a quick survey of what is involved:
First you need to find and hire a lawyer familiar with (1) intellectual
property issues involving (2) photographic images (3) on the Web. This
first step involves a non-trivial cost in terms of time and efforts but
is basically free in monetary terms.
Assuming you have found a reliable lawyer, you need to (4) build a
detailed file with all the evidence of wrong-doing and then (5) spend
time with the lawyer explaining the case. You may run several
iterations between (4) and (5).
The lawyer will then (6) take the case to whatever court is relevant and
hopefully win it (if the case is lost, there is the option of (6-A)
picking up your loses as part of your operating costs or (6-B) taking
the case to a higher court with the same lawyer or a different one and
repeat the procedure until the case is won or until you have brought
your case to Supreme Court).
If the lawyer wins the case, then you need to determine if (7) the
compensations are sufficient to cover all of the costs incurred,
including (8) the cost of securing the said compensations from the
defendant, and (9) the method by which you will secure such
compensations. If (7) is not favorable, then go back to (6-A).
I have little knowledge about the sum total of all these costs, but it
strikes me that the theft of photographs on the web is unlikely to
generate enough benefits to generate a favorable cost/benefit ratio.
Unless, of course, the case becomes transformed into a "reference" case
and moves up step-by-step to Supreme Court. This only happens if both
parties have powerful people behind them with "deep pockets".
This occurred several years ago in the province of Quebec in a case
involving Gilbert Duclos on the issue of photography and privacy. The
case was ultimately lost by Duclos and street photography received a
severe blow in Quebec. Once all costs were accounted for, Duclos
himself lost a few $,000. However, he got tremendous publicity through
the case and the cost/benefit ultimately turned very favorable to him,
despite the unfavorable odds initially...
Is there anybody out there with a strong stomach and deep pockets
prepared to take the risk of testing the strength of "intellectual
property" protection for photographers posting their work on the web?
Guy
