Now we're discussion penalties. The landmark case was won in Oakland. A young photographer submitted unsolicited and on his own some 35mm slides for use at Christmas to the privately owned TV station KUTV, Channel 2. They used a simple picture he made of a wrapped package with a bow without telling him and without any compensation. He notified them they used his picture and asked for 'reasonable compensation.' They ignored him. After hammering them, still no claim for any definate monitary amount, they said, 'It's just a picture of a Christmas package, anybody could have done it.' He consulted a lawyer. The law firm investigated and found the rates at KUTV were $100,000 a minute, and his five second exposure had played at station breaks for over 80 days. They totaled the amound of time, cost of time they would have charged and sued for that amount: eighty thousand dollars. In court, the issues were argued and a settlement was agreed upon after the coutr deemed his copyright was violated. On appeal, the TV station argued that his copyright was filed after the law suit was instigated. In fact after the case was filed. The ruling on that was upheld in favor of the photographer, because the copyright was a given but the filing was done as a formality inc ase the legal action would continue after his ability to represent his own copyright, death by accident or some other. The ruling in favor of the photographer was supported after appeal, and the judgement was made in accordance with an act of Congress that gave as punitive damage from ten to one hundred times the value extablished: $80,000 When the court ordered the TV station to pay eight MILLION dollars, the photographer got embarrassed and wanted to withdraw his claim, asking for a reasonable settlement so he could simply get on with his life and expected a promise that the broadcasters would never do that again to anybody else. The court refused to let him withdraw his suit, even when he insisted his lawyers take his willingness to withdraw to appeal. The appeal was rejected. The TV station had to pay the eighty millin PLUS two million in negligence law suits punitive damages. "Waisting the courts' time." Because of the $82 million pay out to the photographer for this one mistake of copyright infringement, the station owners had to sell; it was bought by Fox, owned by that time by Rupert Murdock running around all over the US buying TV and radion stations for his conglomerate. The photographer's name withheld, various accounts published in -- among other publicationd -- PDN (Photo District News) about stock photography . . . the photographer ended up with the eighty-two million less legal fees of 48% and that's the fact, ladies and gentlemen. S. Shapiro ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emily L. Ferguson" <elf@xxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Gallery of 2004-06-05 Copyright issues > One of the biggest benefits of registering your work before > publication is the penalty for infringment. The penalty for > infringement of a registered work is up to $150,000 and legal > expenses, whereas the penalty for infringment of an unregistered work > is possibly as little as the medium upon which the work is captured. > > Basically there's no use to attempting to prosecute an infringment if > the work is not registered. > > Registration can be done in bulk for a single $30 fee and by anyone > in the world and is managed by the US Copyright Office. > > For information relevant to photographers especially go to > http://www.editorialphotographers.com or the ASMP. > > It is essential for professionals to register their work before > publication on an organized basis. > -- > Emily L. Ferguson > mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx > 508-563-6822 > New England landscapes, wooden boats and races, press photography > http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/ > >
