12 ms·
Whether or not the court will award $ will depend on its assessment of the “originality” standard set by Bridgeman v. Corel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br
by spoonjim 5y ago
Whether or not the court will award $ will depend on its assessment of the “originality” standard set by Bridgeman v. Corel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....
- fxtentacle 5y agoI believe it'll mainly be about if and when those images were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The slightly mean but correct play in those cases is to: 1. Register your images with the USCO 2. Send them a friendly email that you'd appreciate if they would license your images in general, without explicit examples. 3. Wait for the next update/patch/release that distributes your images. 4. Now you're suing for willful infringement including statutory damages.
- maratc 5y agoGP says if there is no originality, there is no copyright, so it does not matter if images were registered or not.
- dagw 5y agoI don't think that applies here. My understanding was that in Bridgeman v. Corel, Corel wasn't using Bridgeman's images, but images taken by a different photographer of the exact same subject as the photos Bridgeman claimed copyright on. In this case we're clearly talking about the exact same photo. Had someone from Capcom taken a picture of the exact same broken window as this photographer and used that photo instead then there wouldn't be a case.