[aslyfox]

⁰https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/02/13/the-first-contested-case-at-the-c...-claims-board/

The First Contested Case at the Copyright Claims Board

Photographer wins damages

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 03-07-2023 at 06:30 AM.

[UncleVanya]

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/02/13/the-first-contested-case-at-the-c...-claims-board/

The First Contested Case at the Copyright Claims Board

Photographer wins damages

A little confusing. The linked article doesn’t discuss the outcome. It seems to be a few weeks old. Is there another link?

[luftfluss]

Update posted at PetaPixel: New Copyright Claims Board Rules in Favor of Photographer in First Case | PetaPixel

After finding in Oppenheimer’s favor, the court had to decide how much money to award the photographer. The minimum statutory damages that the court could award was $750 with the maximum set at $15,000. Since Oppenheimer had not provided any evidence of actual damage to his business, the judges kept the monetary payment at the lower end with two awarding $1,000 and the third opting for $750.

[aslyfox]

A little confusing. The linked article doesn’t discuss the outcome. It seems to be a few weeks old. Is there another link?

" That case has now reached its final decision. In a judgment dated February 28, 2023, the CCB ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him a $1,000 in statutory damages. "

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/03/02/the-copyright-claims-board-decides-its-first-case/

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 03-06-2023 at 04:52 PM.

[UncleVanya]

" That case has now reached its final decision. In a judgment dated February 28, 2023, the CCB ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him a $1,000 in statutory damages. "

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/03/02/the-copyright-claims-board-decides-its-first-case/

Thanks. That’s helps. The first link doesn’t give that detail.

[aslyfox]

" While the court has been active for since June ’22, this is its first case was decided on February 28, 2023. It is a case discussing an unauthorized image use by a lawyer on his website. The final ruling was in favor of the photographer, though far from what he asked for. Here are the full details. "

https://www.diyphotography.net/copyright-claims-board-first-case-photographe...ase-vs-lawyer/

This article has very good summary of the case and issues involved

[UncleVanya]

I feel like at only $1000 this was not really worth the time and effort expended but I don’t know what swayed the judges.

[aslyfox]

" Determining Damages
Here is where the case is actually decided. Oppenheimer wanted significant statutory damages, originally seeking more than the CCB could ever award, while Prutton wanted as low as $200, claiming to be an innocent infringer.

However, the board ruled that there was no evidence to claim that he was an innocent infringer. Oppenheimer had provided proof that at least one of the places the work was posted had a copyright notice, and that Prutton “had access” to copies where the notice was available.

As such, the innocent infringer damages were unavailable. Furthermore, Prutton could not provide evidence that he was unaware of the infringement, which is a requirement of that defense.

This set the minimum statutory damages to $750.

From there, the board ruled that the norm of the court is to establish some relationship between actual damages and statutory damages. However, Oppenheimer had not provided any evidence of actual damages.

With that in mind, the board opted to keep the damages to the lower end of the spectrum, which at the CCB is anywhere between $750 and $15,000. Two of the three judges opted for $1,000 in damages, while the third wanted the minimum, $750 "

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/03/02/the-copyright-claims-board-decides-its-first-case/

[lesmore49]

⁰https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/02/13/the-first-contested-case-at-the-c...-claims-board/

The First Contested Case at the Copyright Claims Board

Photographer wins damages

I enjoy your posts on legalities. Back in the '70's or so, I recall I used to read a journal, that would report on different cases, the decisions...and the possible effect these decisions would have on the public.

For the life of me, I can't recall what it was called.

[UncleVanya]

" Determining Damages
Here is where the case is actually decided. Oppenheimer wanted significant statutory damages, originally seeking more than the CCB could ever award, while Prutton wanted as low as $200, claiming to be an innocent infringer.

However, the board ruled that there was no evidence to claim that he was an innocent infringer. Oppenheimer had provided proof that at least one of the places the work was posted had a copyright notice, and that Prutton “had access” to copies where the notice was available.

As such, the innocent infringer damages were unavailable. Furthermore, Prutton could not provide evidence that he was unaware of the infringement, which is a requirement of that defense.

This set the minimum statutory damages to $750.

From there, the board ruled that the norm of the court is to establish some relationship between actual damages and statutory damages. However, Oppenheimer had not provided any evidence of actual damages.

With that in mind, the board opted to keep the damages to the lower end of the spectrum, which at the CCB is anywhere between $750 and $15,000. Two of the three judges opted for $1,000 in damages, while the third wanted the minimum, $750 "

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2023/03/02/the-copyright-claims-board-decides-its-first-case/

Thanks. I thought the upper limit was 30k however. Is there a reason it was only 15 in this case?

[aslyfox]

Thanks. I thought the upper limit was 30k however. Is there a reason it was only 15 in this case?

I have no idea

[UncleVanya]

I have no idea

No worries. I appreciate your insight and hoped you might have an idea.

[aslyfox]

"Lynn Goldsmith's original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists," Sotomayor wrote for the majority.

"To hold otherwise would potentially authorize a range of commercial copying of photographs, to be used for purposes that are substantially the same as those of the originals," she said.

Read "Supreme Court rules against Andy Warhol in copyright dispute over Prince portrait" on SmartNews: https://l.smartnews.com/p-6a3z4/tFGiZD

Supreme Court rules against Warhol Foundation in Prince photo copyright case

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/18/andy-warhol-prince-painting-supreme-court/



Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc., Petitioner
v.
Lynn Goldsmith, et al.

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

[UncleVanya]

Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright case : NPR

I didn’t have access to most of the sources posted earlier.

[aslyfox]

Thanks. From UncleVanya's source:

[QUOTE]. . . Legal experts contacted for this story agreed with the Supreme Court's decision.

"If the underlying art is recognizable in the new art, then you've got a problem," said Columbia Law School professor of law, science and technology Timothy Wu in an interview with NPR's Nina Totenberg.

Entertainment attorney Albert Soler, a partner with the New York law firm Scarinci Hollenbeck, said that the commercial use of the photograph back in 1984 as well as in 2016 makes the case for fair use difficult to argue in this instance.

"One of the factors courts look at is whether the work is for commercial use or some other non-commercial use like education?" Soler said. "In this case, it was a series of works that were for a commercial purpose according to the Supreme Court, and so there was no fair use."

Soler added the Supreme Court's ruling is likely to have a big impact on cases involving the "sampling" of existing artworks in the future.

"This supreme court case opens up the floodgates for many copyright infringement lawsuits against many artists," said Soler. "The analysis is going to come down to whether or not it's transformative in nature. Does the new work have a different purpose?" . . .[QUOTE]