What happens when you 'borrow' a photo off the net : Legal Case (USA)

[ricktas]

Thought this one might be of interest to members here. Remember this is an American case, and in Australia you do not have to register copyright, it is assigned to the person who pressed the shutter button, at the time of capture, (unless domestic portraiture, or a contract exists to over-rule standard practice).

How a $10.00 photo cost $4000.00 (USD)

http://blog.webcopyplus.com/2011/02/...oto/#more-4566

[James T]

Shocking ignorance from people who work in the industry. I love the attempt to make it look like they were bullied as well, acting all hurt because they don't get to decide how much the work they stole is worth.

[Longshots]

Shocking ignorance from people who work in the industry. I love the attempt to make it look like they were bullied as well, acting all hurt because they don't get to decide how much the work they stole is worth.

Totally agree. In the article they completely agree that they were wrong.

"Borrowing" images even for mock ups is a way of life for the majority of designers and for some reasons thats seen as an accepted practice. Its not, its wrong.

[snappysi]

pretty ignorant for someone that is "in the industry" to be so blatantly unaware of the laws surrounding there chosen profession. i would have to think that such an article could only hurt there business as from my point of view it does seem quite unprofessional.
Like going to your accountant and saying "can i claim for this?" and he says "sure why not ! ". Not exactly confidence inspiring....

Simon,

[atky]

The question is, what would they do if someone "borrowed" something of the web that they had created?

[bobt]

Or ...... to adopt the salmon swimming upstream mode for the day, maybe photographer's shouldn't always assume that they have been ripped off and take some responsibility for releasing photos into the wild.

I still work on the basis that mistakes happen just as crap happens in Afghanistan, and people need to be a little less greedy, a little more conciliatory, a little less litigeous and perhaps a little less precious.

There is an attitude that suggests photographers are always in the right, always worth a lot more than others, and that somehow we belong on pedestals. Photographers need to protect their work, and to earn a living - but they also need to protect their integrity and not assume a greater value in the scheme of things than is perhaps justified. They might also pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that someone else likes their work and factor that into the equation before reaching for a lawyer and seeking inflated amounts. Not everything needs to be settled via aggression and litigation even though it is the first port of call for many.

OK ... you can start thowing stones now .....

[kiwi]

I read that case after Wlilliam posted it on facebook. Based on what I read I think the lawyer probably got $3990 and the photographer $10.....or at least it seemed so.

[Analog6]

The first time they have been caught, they should say, I think.

[reaction]

Hm, I can't see why they would post that article, it just makes them look bad, and unrepentant.