3 ms·
The problem seems to be that while it is deceptive and probably illegal to imply you have a copyright over a public domain image, the company who is suing doesn
by smadge 8y ago
The problem seems to be that while it is deceptive and probably illegal to imply you have a copyright over a public domain image, the company who is suing doesn't have the "standing" to sue. Instead that is the responsibility of the FTC or an Attorney General. Although it seems unfortunate because those institutions have limited resources and/or might be captured and not willing to pursue such cases.
- paultopia 8y agoBut this is not the case when the company suing has actually been induced by the fraud to purchase images. Then they have knock-down standing, because they have an individualized legally cognizable injury.
- smadge 8y agoI don’t have any legal expertise. The article just made it seem like they wouldn’t win the case because of that reason.
- paultopia 8y agoNo personal criticism meant! The article is badly written to suggest the standing problem is general when it's really a problem only for plaintiffs who haven't actually lost money on the scam. (One is the many flaws with the article...)