Designer Must Pay $100 Grand for Using Nude Photo

Sometimes I wish a giant company would steal my image so I can go after them for a hundred grand. (although I don't think I'd get nearly as much for my work considering how unknown I am) 😛
 
FalseDigital said:
Sometimes I wish a giant company would steal my image so I can go after them for a hundred grand. (although I don't think I'd get nearly as much for my work considering how unknown I am) 😛
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of the value of the work (or more generally, damage done). Punitive damages attempt to prevent repetition by making the deed unprofitable - hence the fine is above the profit the offender might have made rather than proportional to the damage to the victim.
 
Yes Yes, I understand. But in order to determine the potential value of lost profits the work has to be valued at a certain percentage in the first place.

On a more serious note, I'm happy the guy won. Thiefs should get punished more often.

sevo said:
It is not a matter of the value of the work (or more generally, damage done). Punitive damages attempt to prevent repetition by making the deed unprofitable - hence the fine is above the profit the offender might have made rather than proportional to the damage to the victim.
Click to expand...
 
jsrockit said:
$100,000 seems small.
Click to expand...

He asked (or his lawyer did) for $150K plus $60K in "lawyers fees" (which were denied) and other sundries (court costs) - he got $100K, no lawyer's fees and $450 for the "other".

I note that the defendant(s) have not (or did not as of time of judgment) respond to the charge.

I wonder if this will carry any weight what so ever for the artist.

I also wonder how the defendant attained the image if the artist had never licensed it - clearly it's a theft but to print it on hang tags of jeans the image must have been "printable" and attained via the Internet (an assumption of course). I wonder how (if at all possible) that sort of thing could have been prevented.

For example, supposing the jeans were sold in, say, Russia. The artist would never have known I would think.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I also wonder how the defendant attained the image if the artist had never licensed it - clearly it's a theft but to print it on hang tags of jeans the image must have been "printable" and attained via the Internet (an assumption of course). I wonder how (if at all possible) that sort of thing could have been prevented.

For example, supposing the jeans were sold in, say, Russia. The artist would never have known I would think.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

Google the photographer's name and you'll find high-res versions of this image. Besides, a hang tag is so small that almost any image size will do. You could probably lift the image off Philips de Pury's website and print it.

This sort of thing can't be prevented and had the copyright breach (I hate to use 'theft' for copyright as it's misleading) occured in a distant country the photographer might've not found out about it. Happens all the time and there's nothing one can do about it.
 
Copyright is silly until it's enforced, eh?

Moral of the story: license your images, specially if they're used for profit. Well, license anything that is not of your own making if you are not sure it's "free" (mere downloading from the intertoobes does not make it legally free).
 
FalseDigital said:
Yes Yes, I understand. But in order to determine the potential value of lost profits the work has to be valued at a certain percentage in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, you did not understand. Punitive damages are awared for registered works only and are not based on value or lost profits. The amount awared for punitive damages is set by law.
 
PKR said:
maybe it has more to do with the quality of the legal assistance?
Click to expand...


I know close to nothing about the US legal system but I suppose it has more to do with the fact that they 'only' used the image on hang tags and it seems to be a fairly small company.
 
Kevin said:
No, you did not understand. Punitive damages are awared for registered works only and are not based on value or lost profits. The amount awared for punitive damages is set by law.
Click to expand...

First statement is correct; second is incorrect. The second statement refers to statutory damage, NOT punitive damages. In the US, the two are VERY different; statutory, as the name implies is set but statute; punitive depends on how deep the defendant's pockets are. Not sure about NY law, but in CA, a plaintiff must first show that a defendant has sufficient resources to pay sought-after punitive damages, but if you can... oh boy 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom