4 ms·

> Now, CBS has sued Tannen back, claiming that he "hypocritically" used CBS intellectual property "while simultaneously bringing suit against Plaintiff's sister

> Now, CBS has sued Tannen back, claiming that he "hypocritically" used CBS intellectual property "while simultaneously bringing suit against Plaintiff's sister company, CBS Interactive Inc., claiming it had violated his own copyright." Wow CBS even admits that it's retaliation! Hopefully that comes up in court as a strike against CBS.

macspoofing 9y ago
Why would it be a strike against CBS? He's suing CBS for a dumb reason for a crazy amount ($300k), and now they are suing him back for a dumb reason for a crazy amount. I suppose the photographer is probably more in the right. His use of the stills feels like fair use, while theirs is less so (presumably they made some money off of the article) - but the amount he's asking for is crazy (because the copyright infringement law is crazy).
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  Because they are using the courts, wrongly IMO (since his use was fair), to attempt to stop him from using the courts rightly. The statutory damages for their willful infringement are high to disuade bad actors from simply asking forgiveness when caught instead of asking for permission.
  - techdragon 9y ago
    The sheer volume of content created in the current day makes the permission vs forgiveness model broken. We are rapidly losing track of who to even ask the permission from in many cases (the entire orphan works mess) and unfortunately it's going to mean much of the history of the last 25 years of the 20th century, and perhaps even the entire history of the 21st, may be... for all practical purposes... lost instead of the most well preserved and accessible.
    - stinkytaco 9y ago
      I think with safe-harbor, the model in many places is forgiveness rather than permission. The burden in on the rights holder to remove content and, as you say, there's so much content produced that you can see why they essentially dragnet their copyright enforcement. But the end result is the same, the model is broken and needs to be reevaluated.
      - tehwebguy 9y ago
        Safe harbor protects the UGC facilitating site, it does not protect the user that “generated” infringement. For example, a copyright holder need not send a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube before suing the uploader of their copyrighted material.
- divanvisagie 9y ago
  How does it feel like fair use if we don't even know how he used it. At this point we cant be certain if he didn't upload them for sale on 500px as his own stills.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  > He's suing CBS for a dumb reason for a crazy amount ($300k), Not a dumb reason or a crazy amount. He created some photographs. They used them without permission.Sure, $300k is maybe a thousand times more than they're worth in a fair market, but $0 is more than a thousand times less. By not buying them fairly, they've forced him to use expensive lawyers and court processes. And the amount is part of the deterrent - if paying him fairly upfront costs $500, but not paying him either costs $0 or has a small chance of costing $500 when he sues for the actual damages, the reasonable (not moral) choice would be the latter.

macspoofing 9y ago

Why would it be a strike against CBS? He's suing CBS for a dumb reason for a crazy amount ($300k), and now they are suing him back for a dumb reason for a crazy amount. I suppose the photographer is probably more in the right. His use of the stills feels like fair use, while theirs is less so (presumably they made some money off of the article) - but the amount he's asking for is crazy (because the copyright infringement law is crazy).

tehwebguy 9y ago
Because they are using the courts, wrongly IMO (since his use was fair), to attempt to stop him from using the courts rightly. The statutory damages for their willful infringement are high to disuade bad actors from simply asking forgiveness when caught instead of asking for permission.
- techdragon 9y ago
  The sheer volume of content created in the current day makes the permission vs forgiveness model broken. We are rapidly losing track of who to even ask the permission from in many cases (the entire orphan works mess) and unfortunately it's going to mean much of the history of the last 25 years of the 20th century, and perhaps even the entire history of the 21st, may be... for all practical purposes... lost instead of the most well preserved and accessible.
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    I think with safe-harbor, the model in many places is forgiveness rather than permission. The burden in on the rights holder to remove content and, as you say, there's so much content produced that you can see why they essentially dragnet their copyright enforcement. But the end result is the same, the model is broken and needs to be reevaluated.
    - tehwebguy 9y ago
      Safe harbor protects the UGC facilitating site, it does not protect the user that “generated” infringement. For example, a copyright holder need not send a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube before suing the uploader of their copyrighted material.
divanvisagie 9y ago
How does it feel like fair use if we don't even know how he used it. At this point we cant be certain if he didn't upload them for sale on 500px as his own stills.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> He's suing CBS for a dumb reason for a crazy amount ($300k), Not a dumb reason or a crazy amount. He created some photographs. They used them without permission.Sure, $300k is maybe a thousand times more than they're worth in a fair market, but $0 is more than a thousand times less. By not buying them fairly, they've forced him to use expensive lawyers and court processes. And the amount is part of the deterrent - if paying him fairly upfront costs $500, but not paying him either costs $0 or has a small chance of costing $500 when he sues for the actual damages, the reasonable (not moral) choice would be the latter.