[interested_observer]

Good article - from the point of view of an attorney....

• Head Fakes and Other Lawyer Tactics

[post_eos]

I want to comment on this but I'm too ticked off at the moment. Maybe later. Damn racing snakes.

[monochrome]

I want to comment on this but I'm too ticked off at the moment. Maybe later. Damn racing snakes.

Racing snakes? That 's what they're paid to do. Why are you angry?

You have something of value. Why would you assume other people won't brazenly steal it? People steal things all the time. Then they try not to be held accountable for the theft.

Hell, Fiduciaries, legal officers of the court, steal clients' money all the time. Happened here with $1.25MM just last week. Guy only got caught because he took a signing bonus to join another Firm. It never troubled him one bit to think his old employer might look at his books. Getting caught is so rare!!

[jatrax]

Interesting read. I read recently of a photographer that sent a letter to an infringer asking for (I thought) reasonable payment for use of an unlicensed image. The reply from his lawyer was essentially: I am xyz's lawyer, if you so much as hint that my client has done anything wrong I will sue you for defamation, if my client ever hears another word from you I will spend the next two years dragging you into court until you are broke.

Pretty much what was in the article, it does not matter who is right if you can convince the other guy to back off. The photographer gave up as it was not worth the hassle or legal fees.

[Nass]

Good read - it's sad that the cost to buy copyright is so expensive

[jatrax]

it's sad that the cost to buy copyright is so expensive

What do you mean? There is no cost to buy a copyright. You own the copyright as soon as you take the picture.

[Nass]

"stamped Copyright Registration" costs money. Yes you own copyright, but actually registering it is a different matter, sadly.

[jatrax]

Ahh, I see. In the US we call that 'registering' a copyright. Costs (I think) $35 but you can send a whole batch at the same time for that fee. The difference (in the US) is that damages claimed can be much higher if the work is registered than if it is just copyrighted. If registered I think you can get $150,000 plus attorney fees, if not registered then it is more likely to be just what you would have licensed it for and no attorney fees. I also think it has to be within 90 days of publishing.

So not terribly expensive if you are licensing images for large amounts, but far too much to spend if you are not getting a good fee.

[interested_observer]

Interesting read. I read recently of a photographer that sent a letter to an infringer asking for (I thought) reasonable payment for use of an unlicensed image. The reply from his lawyer was essentially: I am xyz's lawyer, if you so much as hint that my client has done anything wrong I will sue you for defamation, if my client ever hears another word from you I will spend the next two years dragging you into court until you are broke.

Pretty much what was in the article, it does not matter who is right if you can convince the other guy to back off. The photographer gave up as it was not worth the hassle or legal fees.

I guess the best defense is a burn to the ground offensive. I think that just showing up in the courtroom with the original image, serial number matched to the camera body in your hand, asking them to produce the same should be a sufficient defense, while noting that you have not been paid for the use of your image. Along with a good insurance company attorney defending your character (defending defamation of character is usually covered by your home owners insurance policy) and suing them to hell for impugning your character and integrity with your own junk yard dog.

Do you have a link to the story? I would really like to read it....

Note - I once rented a house to a couple who wound up not paying the rent and refused to move, while dismantling the house. I had to have them evicted and then sued for rent and damages (on principal). They counter sued, and yes my home owners insurance policy (a suggestion from a friend's dad) came to my rescue (defamation of character). The insurance company buried the other side in paper, court appearances, depositions and hearings - the to the point that their attorney (a friend who was helping them for free), just quit and walked away. I received a judgement. 7 years later I finally received payment (with 10% per year interest), when the owner of another property they were renting - bought out their lease for some reason.

[monochrome]

The insurance company buried the other side in paper, court appearances, depositions and hearings - the to the point that their attorney (a friend who was helping them for free), just quit and walked away.

You often have to have pretty deep pockets just to defend what are clearly your rights.

Incidentally, in white collar crime cases prosecutors use this very tactic (bury the defendant in accusations that must be answered and respond to evidentiary discovery motions with mountains of uncataloged paper) to obtain plea bargains from the merely accused. It is so easy to obtain an indictment that one is forced to settle unless one is quite wealthy - and then one can be retried on technicalities until one's wealth is exhausted. This tactic is now bleeding into actions versus political enemies to silence them.

In civil cases attorneys will often bury the opposition in discovery motions that must be answered even though there is no possible response. At $800 an hour attorney fees alone will force you to surrender.

[interested_observer]

You often have to have pretty deep pockets just to defend what are clearly your rights.

Incidentally, in white collar crime cases prosecutors use this very tactic (bury the defendant in accusations that must be answered and respond to evidentiary discovery motions with mountains of uncataloged paper) to obtain plea bargains from the merely accused. It is so easy to obtain an indictment that one is forced to settle unless one is quite wealthy - and then one can be retried on technicalities until one's wealth is exhausted. This tactic is now bleeding into actions versus political enemies to silence them.

In civil cases attorneys will often bury the opposition in discovery motions that must be answered even though there is no possible response. At $800 an hour attorney fees alone will force you to surrender.

Yes, I know. A couple of quotes come to mind.... "being right and being dead right."

Along with Shakespeare's famous quote - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

[jatrax]

Do you have a link to the story? I would really like to read it....

Here you go, I see now that the infringer was in India so who knows if he was really a lawyer or just bluffing. But it illustrates the difficulty in recovering fees for unlicensed content without big guns behind you. Theoretically your agency should be handling this type of case, but too often they do nothing.
Discussion Forum | Alamy
Discussion Forum | Alamy

And some discussion about the article the OP linked to: Discussion Forum | Alamy

I think much of the discussion there is revolving around Image Rights https://www.imagerights.com/index.php which seems to be attempting to recover royalties for photographers, for a fee of course. Sounds much like the firms that do collection for past due accounts. If I had a large RM portfolio it might be worth annual fee, but I doubt I have anything worth the trouble

[boriscleto]

Yes, I know. A couple of quotes come to mind.... "being right and being dead right."

Along with Shakespeare's famous quote - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Yes indeed "Dick the Butcher" did say that in Henry VI as a comedic line...

The next line is even more biting...

JACK CADE.
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.- How now! who's there?

Basically you have the villain of the story saying lawyers are worse villains than me.

[interested_observer]

A number of years ago, I was attended a conference. I believe that it was Sarnoff Research Labs that was there talking about their invisible digital watermarking (steganography) system. Their claim was that they had algorithms that embedded marking codes within the entire images that could be tracked. The markers remained through various post processing operations such as sharpening, tone and color adjustments, noise reduction, various lens and perspective corrections, along with cropping and chip outs.

I have seen various invisible digital watermarking schemes, but none as ambitious as this one. It appears that it was a bit too ambitious in that I don't see anything near this robust in the current product offerings.

This would be a nice capability to have. You could conclusively mark and identify your images, and prove that the offending image is truly yours.

[post_eos]

Racing snakes? That 's what they're paid to do. Why are you angry?

You have something of value. Why would you assume other people won't brazenly steal it? People steal things all the time. Then they try not to be held accountable for the theft.

Hell, Fiduciaries, legal officers of the court, steal clients' money all the time. Happened here with $1.25MM just last week. Guy only got caught because he took a signing bonus to join another Firm. It never troubled him one bit to think his old employer might look at his books. Getting caught is so rare!!

I'm angry because my fairy tale world has been shattered . I was raised to believe that judges, lawyers, policemen and the like are part of the justice system. Where is justice when you can get paid to teach people to steal and cheat. This is supposed to be the job of criminals.

I do assume that people want to steal things of value. That's the nature of some people. After they commit the act (or are accused of it) then the justice system kicks in. The prosecutors prosecute and the defenders defend. Both are very important pieces of the system and both ensure that all parties get justice.

I have not seen every law school catalog, but I assume that Stealing Stuff 101 is not a course offering from many of them.

My other problem with this is where is the line? Teaching people to get away with stealing intellectual or creative property is OK because you can get away with it? Is that what we're saying here? Because if it is, then is it OK to give seminars on circumventing gun control laws? A lot of people might say OK to that. Can I give a course on how to hide a body? I don't think too many would agree with that.

I'm not against lawyers at all. If my family would have had the money to do so I would have wanted to go to law school. Maybe that's also why I took offense to this. It's something I would not have done as a lawyer. I know others do not have measure up to my standards. But society's standard is that stealing is wrong. If you want to be able to use other people's creativity without compensation then put your effort into changing the law instead of circumventing it.