4 ms·

Has it ever been successfully argued in a court of law that forgetting a minor detail of the CC license counts as "willfully infringement"?

by orlp 3y ago

Tomte 3y ago
There have been rulings in Germany (I can find only one), that minor omissions when generally crediting the photographer, do not lead to damages: https://sos-recht.de/abmahnung/news/kein-schadensersatz-veroeffentlichung-cc-lizenz-fotos-ohne-namensnennung/ https://sos-recht.de/abmahnung/news/kein-schadensersatz-vero...
b112 3y ago
An invalidated license may not be that, I don't know, but once the license is clearly terminated, any use of that work would then be wilful. So if you have a bluray movie for sale, you'd have to pull copies, and reissue edited without the image. Art would have to be taken off the walls. Logos rebranded. Otherwise it would be wilful. And I believe it is per infringement?
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
This often doesn't matter. What they're looking for is something to sue you for that isn't so blatantly absurd it would get their lawyers disbarred for making the claim, not something they can necessarily win on the merits. Then they go to you and say hey, it'll cost you this many thousand dollars to hire a lawyer and defend against this lawsuit in court -- even if you win. Or, you can just pay a fraction of that right now and it will all go away.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  That's ultimately why the loser of a civil case should be on the hook for all attorneys fees and court costs. I'd actually go further and argue that a plaintiff who initiates a frivolous lawsuit should have to pay damages to the victim for the losses caused by having to defend such a case. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee... (this name is deceptive as it is basically the "every western democracy except the USA" rule)
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Copyright in the US has an option for fee shifting. Usually it's loser pays, and there's limits on how much can be shifted, but there was a case where a zealously litigious photographer wound up being on the hook for the loser's attorney's fees because the loser had offered to settle the case for a reasonable amount early on, but the photographer thought they could get more money, which they didn't.

Has it ever been successfully argued in a court of law that forgetting a minor detail of the CC license counts as "willfully infringement"?

by orlp 3y ago

Has it ever been successfully argued in a court of law that forgetting a minor detail of the CC license counts as "willfully infringement"?

Tomte 3y ago

There have been rulings in Germany (I can find only one), that minor omissions when generally crediting the photographer, do not lead to damages: https://sos-recht.de/abmahnung/news/kein-schadensersatz-veroeffentlichung-cc-lizenz-fotos-ohne-namensnennung/ https://sos-recht.de/abmahnung/news/kein-schadensersatz-vero...

b112 3y ago

An invalidated license may not be that, I don't know, but once the license is clearly terminated, any use of that work would then be wilful. So if you have a bluray movie for sale, you'd have to pull copies, and reissue edited without the image. Art would have to be taken off the walls. Logos rebranded. Otherwise it would be wilful. And I believe it is per infringement?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

This often doesn't matter. What they're looking for is something to sue you for that isn't so blatantly absurd it would get their lawyers disbarred for making the claim, not something they can necessarily win on the merits. Then they go to you and say hey, it'll cost you this many thousand dollars to hire a lawyer and defend against this lawsuit in court -- even if you win. Or, you can just pay a fraction of that right now and it will all go away.

bdw5204 3y ago
That's ultimately why the loser of a civil case should be on the hook for all attorneys fees and court costs. I'd actually go further and argue that a plaintiff who initiates a frivolous lawsuit should have to pay damages to the victim for the losses caused by having to defend such a case. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee... (this name is deceptive as it is basically the "every western democracy except the USA" rule)
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Copyright in the US has an option for fee shifting. Usually it's loser pays, and there's limits on how much can be shifted, but there was a case where a zealously litigious photographer wound up being on the hook for the loser's attorney's fees because the loser had offered to settle the case for a reasonable amount early on, but the photographer thought they could get more money, which they didn't.