Blogger sued for $7.6M - Why not to use copyrighted images

Another reason I think this will end in favor 0f the blogger is the amount being sued for. I refuse to believe 56 stolen images resulted in 7.6 million in damages.

 

Hmm, I wonder how many of you thought about that?

 

That site is trash, but he has a decent fair use argument to throw at the courts. Looks to me from the one time I went to the site that he turned every celeb picture into a parody of sorts - not a good one mind you, but a parody none the less. He certainly is on shaky ground, since what he's doing is blatently transparent, but on the other hand, the site makes money and he'll definitely have some decent lawyers fighting for him.

In the end, I imagine that the case will be settled for an undisclosed sum with a gag in place.

 

Yes, and the one that is illegal is the one in question in this thread. What exactly is your point?

 

If he's expecting the parody argument to hold up I'd wager he loses immediately. It's not even close.

 

I think you will find this one will disappear pretty quickly.

It isn't enough to prove "infringement" dependent on time of the original exposure you need to prove actually damages e.g. you lost millions of income or they made million thus 7.6 million damages... that is not easy to do... Surely "if" actual damages are say only $200 - punitive damages will never be 7.6 million.

Big numbers "usually" is a tactic to get the defendant to settle out-of-court so the plantiff doesn't need to risk losing.

 

IANAL, but I believe that there is the possibility of statutory damages for copyright infringement. That means that no "actual damages" need to be shown. The statutory damages can be up to $150,000 per incident if the infringement was "willful". See, for example:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/504.html

Click the link to read more of the statute.

 

That's not how it works. If your copyrights are registered before filing suit or withing xx days of publishing you can choose if you are suing for actual damages or the other. There is a floor and ceiling per incident on the copyright infringment alone which is why people wait so long to sue sometimes. Let the donkes hang themselves real good.

 

Just saw this and exactly.

 

As you said this is German law and its one that I believe in. I remember seeing a program a few years back and a reporter said once you become famous you give up the right to your privacy.

 

People aren't only touching on the legal aspects, but the moral aspects. Both are morally wrong.

 

yeah, its true, nothing short of a robber. , lol

Abhilash.

 

hmmm... so a legal defense for the guilty is morally wrong?

 

While I'd like to see evidence for that it doesn't change the point I was trying to make. THE PRESS doesn't have more rights than any other person.

 

Well, if I'm not mistaken Icheb is right, and that it isn't just restricted to German law. As far as I can gather you (and the press) are free to snap pictures of celebrities while they are in a public place. However if you do the same while they are at their personal residences etc. then that would be an invasion of their privacy.

 

Quite precise. I wonder how they came up with that figure...or if they just got 10 executives sitting around a table and voted on a number?

Any thoughts as to how they derived at this figure?

 

I assume they calculated with the maximum possible statutory damages ($150,000) for willful infringement per image.

51 images * $150k = $7,650,000