1. For the third time, the business model is licensing images. 2. "The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defen

1. For the third time, the business model is licensing images. 2. "The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle." If they believed damages were likely to only be 1k, they'd have taken the offer. Their calculation neglects statutory damages. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7-4c87-a7cb-c8c382cd1be6 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7... is another case from the same lawyer where statutory damages of $2500 were awarded. If you're entitled to $2500 (for argument's sake) and the other side makes a maximum offer of $1000, rejecting can be reasonable. And if you turn out to win less than $1000, sure, pay for the other side's fees.