3 ms·
Exactly. The "they didn't force me to comply" defence hardly ever holds. In the Netherlands, somebody was recently fined for using an image she got from a "fre
by donkeyd 9y ago
Exactly. The "they didn't force me to comply" defence hardly ever holds.
In the Netherlands, somebody was recently fined for using an image she got from a "free photo's" website. It was a picture that was illegally published on that website, and the judge said she should've checked whether it was actually royalty free. The fine was even higher than expected because she also cropped the picture, which was another breach of copyright, apparently.
- Confiks 9y agoIf you refer to the case in De rijdende rechter ("The traveling judge"): she didn't have to pay a fine, but pay damages to the opposing party (which applies to civil rather than criminal law). In addition to that, both parties have agreed to submit to a binding arbitration decision, with the 'judge' actually being the arbitrator, despite what the program's name would suggest. That means that the decision doesn't actually have to follow the law. I personally find it unhelpful that the program never clarifies that it is a display of binding arbitration instead of a decision by a judge. I've seen the layman confuse the two quite a few times.
- donkeyd 9y agoYou are correct, damages, not a fine, I used the wrong word. Also, while I agree that they don't have to follow the law, they usually do. In the end, the 'judgement' is still based on the law and legal precedent, like in an actual court case.