5 ms·

How much are the infringement letters demanding? $200 for a $100 photo is totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument.

by bthomas 12y ago

kevan 12y ago
$200 probably wouldn't cover lawyers fees. From an amoral perspective, there's a simple cost function: (cost to buy) vs (chance of being caught * cost of damages). If you don't make the cost of damages high enough then the behavior will continue. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
- bthomas 12y ago
  This assumes all violators are doing it willfully. I imagine most restaurant owners that make a Squarespace site in an afternoon have no idea you can't just copy something from Google Images.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    Too bad. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
nav1 12y ago
Yes he does. Dealing with copyright infringement can be very expensive and time consuming.
diminoten 12y ago
Legal fees are likely more than $100 per image, so I imagine he's asking for licensing fee + legal fees + deterrent fee. So probably closer to $1000, if not more. Also, who said anything about morality? This is law, not philosophy. We're firmly planted on the 'is' side of 'is/ought', at this point.
atourgates 12y ago
> $200 for a $100 photo is totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument. How do you figure? I think 10x is an entirely reasonable penalty for stealing* someone's work instead of paying for it lawfully. The MPAA demanded $30,000 for a $0.99 song, which I would say is completely unreasonable. But 10x seems pretty inline with a non-excessive penalty.
jkubicek 12y ago
He's licensing full-resolution digital images for around $400 a pop, so I'd say that asking infringers for a $1000 payment is easily fair and probably far too low. You are stealing his work and lawyers are not cheap.
melling 12y ago
I agree. $999 is the moral limit.</sarcasm> How do people develop this sort of attitude? It's completely illogical. Developers don't understand business?
- bthomas 12y ago
  I think is this the right thing to do? is a valid question - obviously it's independent of any legal damages.
cortesoft 12y ago
$200 might be reasonable if two things were true: 1) There was no legal expense 2) He catches at least 50% of the violators In that case, he would at least make as much as if there were no violators. However, he has legal costs, and probably only catches a fraction of the violators. So the equation should be something close to: (Price charged for violation - legal fees) * % chance of being caught = Original price of image

How much are the infringement letters demanding? $200 for a $100 photo is totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument.

by bthomas 12y ago

How much are the infringement letters demanding? $200 for a $100 photo is totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument.

kevan 12y ago

$200 probably wouldn't cover lawyers fees. From an amoral perspective, there's a simple cost function: (cost to buy) vs (chance of being caught * cost of damages). If you don't make the cost of damages high enough then the behavior will continue. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

bthomas 12y ago
This assumes all violators are doing it willfully. I imagine most restaurant owners that make a Squarespace site in an afternoon have no idea you can't just copy something from Google Images.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Too bad. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

nav1 12y ago

Yes he does. Dealing with copyright infringement can be very expensive and time consuming.

diminoten 12y ago

Legal fees are likely more than $100 per image, so I imagine he's asking for licensing fee + legal fees + deterrent fee. So probably closer to $1000, if not more. Also, who said anything about morality? This is law, not philosophy. We're firmly planted on the 'is' side of 'is/ought', at this point.

atourgates 12y ago

> $200 for a $100 photo is totally reasonable; $1000 and he has no moral argument. How do you figure? I think 10x is an entirely reasonable penalty for stealing* someone's work instead of paying for it lawfully. The MPAA demanded $30,000 for a $0.99 song, which I would say is completely unreasonable. But 10x seems pretty inline with a non-excessive penalty.

jkubicek 12y ago

He's licensing full-resolution digital images for around $400 a pop, so I'd say that asking infringers for a $1000 payment is easily fair and probably far too low. You are stealing his work and lawyers are not cheap.

melling 12y ago

I agree. $999 is the moral limit.</sarcasm> How do people develop this sort of attitude? It's completely illogical. Developers don't understand business?

bthomas 12y ago
I think is this the right thing to do? is a valid question - obviously it's independent of any legal damages.

cortesoft 12y ago

$200 might be reasonable if two things were true: 1) There was no legal expense 2) He catches at least 50% of the violators In that case, he would at least make as much as if there were no violators. However, he has legal costs, and probably only catches a fraction of the violators. So the equation should be something close to: (Price charged for violation - legal fees) * % chance of being caught = Original price of image