3 ms·

I think that's what's being missed in this. DN ripped this guy off and published his photo without paying him for it. When he does the work of tracking them dow

I think that's what's being missed in this. DN ripped this guy off and published his photo without paying him for it. When he does the work of tracking them down and figuring it out, AND after he went to a lawyer to go after DN, they offered him their standard fee plus a couple hundred bucks for his trouble. And when he's not satisfied with that, he's the bad guy. This apparently happens enough for there to be a cottage industry of lawyers going after big publishers who are ripping off small-time photographers. It seems like this whole thing needs serious reform, but probably not by going after people trying to get paid from a big org using their work.

Pfhreak 7y ago
I don't think you have the story straight. DN did infringe, and when called on it, they immediately pulled the photo and offered 5 times the photographer's highest recorded fee charged per photo. The photographer felt $1100 was insufficient, and took DN to court. (Apparently, based on the discovery requests, with an intent to rack up significant legal fees for DN.) So yeah, I'd say the photographer is the bad guy. Or has bad lawyers. Maybe $1000 for a $200 photo isn't enough, but it's probably the sort of thing that could be negotiated reasonably rather than heading straight to court.
- joemi 7y ago
  I don't think anyone's debating that the lawyer is a bad person. But why not take a big company to task? This is a serious ongoing problem for photographers these days. I highly doubt this is the first time this has happened to this photographer. And I doubt it's the first time DN has used someone's photo without permission.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    I feel like news organizations shouldn't even have to pay to use images in the public interest for news broadcasts. What was the context that DN used this image?
    - cool_dude85 7y ago
      You could maybe make a case like this for someone like DN, which is a nonprofit. But do you really want ABC News Brought To You By Disney to be able to use your picture of some newsworthy event in their primetime TV show for free? They're not giving away those ad spots for free in service of the public interest.
      - cwkoss 7y ago
        My main concern is that it is in societies best interest to make the cost of reporting news low. Would be horrible to be in a situation like "all the good pictures of this event cost at least $2000, so if you won't pay for that, your audience can't see a visual of it" Do news agencies have to pay royalties on pictures which are 'adversarial'? ex. Trudeau in blackface? Seems like there are a class of images which society benefits from having them be free and not subject to intellectual property restrictions. Seems like capping royalties as a proportion of revenue earned by ads on that broadcast would be a sensible method of addressing this.
    - joemi 7y ago
      I feel like their willingness to pay any sum implies that they know they should have had permission/agreement beforehand. I can't quickly find details about the context of the photo's use. They might be out there, but if so they seem buried in legal briefs, from what I can tell. My ability to read such dense documents isn't great, unfortunately. I get too bored with it. Similarly, I'm not super knowledgeable of all the ins and outs of fair use (which I believe is what you were alluding to), but it seems fairly nuanced and does not seem to give news organizations a blanket exemption.
- snappyeagle 7y ago
  The lawyer could challenge Rule 68 (settlement being 5 times cost). As long as he can win on that point and 1cent more than the 5 times settlement figure, Mango the photographer doesn't have to pay Democracy Now legal costs. Besides Mango maybe able to prove his costs in tracking down copyright theft is greater than 5 times, which will make Rule68 seem out of date. For example, there might be a company offering copyright theft tracking services which could inflate the costs making the Rule68 5 times settlement out of date. Will be interesting to see how this goes.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    Rule 68 isn't where the 5x cost figure comes from. The 5x figure was simply chosen by this particular defendant as their guess for what would be safely above what the plaintiff was likely to be able to win.
- cool_dude85 7y ago
  Seems like $1100 could very well be insufficient. The photographer had to do the legwork of finding out that DN used his photo without permission, go to the trouble of getting a lawyer involved, the lawyer has to get his cut of the payout, etc. The time to reasonably negotiate fees is before you post the guy's professional work, not afterwards.

Pfhreak 7y ago

I don't think you have the story straight. DN did infringe, and when called on it, they immediately pulled the photo and offered 5 times the photographer's highest recorded fee charged per photo. The photographer felt $1100 was insufficient, and took DN to court. (Apparently, based on the discovery requests, with an intent to rack up significant legal fees for DN.) So yeah, I'd say the photographer is the bad guy. Or has bad lawyers. Maybe $1000 for a $200 photo isn't enough, but it's probably the sort of thing that could be negotiated reasonably rather than heading straight to court.

joemi 7y ago
I don't think anyone's debating that the lawyer is a bad person. But why not take a big company to task? This is a serious ongoing problem for photographers these days. I highly doubt this is the first time this has happened to this photographer. And I doubt it's the first time DN has used someone's photo without permission.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  I feel like news organizations shouldn't even have to pay to use images in the public interest for news broadcasts. What was the context that DN used this image?
  - cool_dude85 7y ago
    You could maybe make a case like this for someone like DN, which is a nonprofit. But do you really want ABC News Brought To You By Disney to be able to use your picture of some newsworthy event in their primetime TV show for free? They're not giving away those ad spots for free in service of the public interest.
    - cwkoss 7y ago
      My main concern is that it is in societies best interest to make the cost of reporting news low. Would be horrible to be in a situation like "all the good pictures of this event cost at least $2000, so if you won't pay for that, your audience can't see a visual of it" Do news agencies have to pay royalties on pictures which are 'adversarial'? ex. Trudeau in blackface? Seems like there are a class of images which society benefits from having them be free and not subject to intellectual property restrictions. Seems like capping royalties as a proportion of revenue earned by ads on that broadcast would be a sensible method of addressing this.
  - joemi 7y ago
    I feel like their willingness to pay any sum implies that they know they should have had permission/agreement beforehand. I can't quickly find details about the context of the photo's use. They might be out there, but if so they seem buried in legal briefs, from what I can tell. My ability to read such dense documents isn't great, unfortunately. I get too bored with it. Similarly, I'm not super knowledgeable of all the ins and outs of fair use (which I believe is what you were alluding to), but it seems fairly nuanced and does not seem to give news organizations a blanket exemption.
snappyeagle 7y ago
The lawyer could challenge Rule 68 (settlement being 5 times cost). As long as he can win on that point and 1cent more than the 5 times settlement figure, Mango the photographer doesn't have to pay Democracy Now legal costs. Besides Mango maybe able to prove his costs in tracking down copyright theft is greater than 5 times, which will make Rule68 seem out of date. For example, there might be a company offering copyright theft tracking services which could inflate the costs making the Rule68 5 times settlement out of date. Will be interesting to see how this goes.
- wtallis 7y ago
  Rule 68 isn't where the 5x cost figure comes from. The 5x figure was simply chosen by this particular defendant as their guess for what would be safely above what the plaintiff was likely to be able to win.
cool_dude85 7y ago
Seems like $1100 could very well be insufficient. The photographer had to do the legwork of finding out that DN used his photo without permission, go to the trouble of getting a lawyer involved, the lawyer has to get his cut of the payout, etc. The time to reasonably negotiate fees is before you post the guy's professional work, not afterwards.