Another interesting copyright case

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/14/2013 02:46:46 PM · #5

Originally posted by JulietNN:

so basically everyone is screwed, doesn't matter cus there is always a loop hole or someone with bigger pockets

Yup, and this paragraph pretty much sums it up:

"Usage of your creation and designs that you sell to your clients are not 100% within your control nor your clients regardless if you copyright register your work and do all of the appropriate protocols to safeguard it. This is true regardless if you are a graphic artist, illustrator, filmmaker, recording artist or photographer, provided that, youâ��re relying on copyright law for these exclusivity rights."

The only thing we CAN guarantee your client is that WE give them 100% exclusivity. The minute they post/share the image anywhere, it's up for grabs.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/14/2013 03:11:44 PM · #6

Regardless of sovereign immunity and the copyright statutes, the photographer should be due just compensation under the "takings" provision of the Fifth Amendment:

Originally posted by US Constitution:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/14/2013 03:51:20 PM · #7

Don't you think his lawyer would know this...?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

12/14/2013 04:21:28 PM · #8

That's freakin' awful!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/14/2013 04:28:41 PM · #9

Originally posted by tanguera:

Don't you think his lawyer would know this...?

I would ... I can see where they'd want immunity from a copyright infringement suit where maximum statutory penalties (up to $250,000) might apply, but it seems clear (to me) that while they might have the right (under eminent domain) to use the picture, it clearly has monetary value and as such I think reasonable compensation should be due.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/14/2013 04:42:26 PM · #10

What irritates me beyond belief about this case (besides it being UNCA which is about 20 minutes from my house), is that if a *student* had violated a copyright this blatantly, there would be grounds for failure/expulsion. hypocrisy, indeed. :(

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/14/2013 04:55:25 PM · #11

Yes, that's right, Paul. If I understand "eminent domain" correctly, it applies to an entity when they appropriate private property for the "greater good" (i.e. a city appropriating someone's home to build a freeway through it). Eminent domain supersedes "private" property laws, and protects the appropriator from lawsuits. But in this case, it doesn't benefit the "greater good" but just the University. Regardless, the University should not be exempt from paying for it (which is not the purpose of ED), since typically, eminent domain requires the appropriating party to pay fair market value for the goods.

Message edited by author 2013-12-14 16:57:48.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/14/2013 05:48:40 PM · #12

People always get this wrong. Change your name to Walt Disney first, then add your watermark.