‘Copyright Troll’ Loses Legal Battle and Must Pay $172k | Hacker News Reader

‘Copyright Troll’ Loses Legal Battle and Must Pay $172k

torrentfreak.com

125 pointslatexr32 comments

> Bell’s complaint alleges he took the photograph in March 2000. However, the defense noted the skyline photo shows green grass and a working fountain. The defense argued that grass in Indianapolis is rarely green in March, and that records show the city did not turn the fountain on until April 2000. The company also pointed to Bell’s testimony that on the day he allegedly took the photograph, he took another skyline photo from the same location later that night. In the nighttime photograph, trees visible under streetlights have no leaves, whereas the same trees in the daytime photograph appear thick with foliage.

> In its verdict, the jury determined that Bell had not proved that he “authored the Indianapolis Skyline Photo, that he owns a copyright in it, and that he registered it with the Copyright Office.”

So from a previous trial, the guy couldn’t even prove the most basic claim that he’s the copyright holder.

> records show the city did not turn the fountain on until April 2000

This is the kind of thing you pay defence lawyers for... I mean, I wouldn't even expect the city to keep records of when the fountain was switched on 20 years ago, let alone be able to get hold of them! And imagine you went to all that effort only to be told "yeah, they were turned on in march that year"...

That's exactly the kind of thing a parks or utilities department would keep track of, since it bears heavily on staffing schedules, maintenance, cleaning, budget, etc.

I could totally imagine there being a team of ~8 people responsible for a few parks. Each day, the foreman decides what to work on (cutting trees, weeding, cleaning the pond, picking litter, repainting railings, etc.). The filling of the fountain might not be planned/scheduled, but simply because the forman saw the sun was out and decided today is the day to switch it on.

For that kind of team, there isn't much need to keep paper records.

And exactly the reason why archiving is so important, even though the process and data stored seems trivial and wasteful.

Mind you there's plenty of archiving still going on, but it's personal / behavioural data.

Considering that the defence lawyers are representing a real estate company this isn't entirely surprising. The firm would be looking up such records every day.

Surely the photographer would have gone to his PC and found the raw file and matched it up pixel for pixel for verification before filing a lawsuit?

Perhaps he did, and then thought "I'll file anyway, nobody will know"?

Have raw files been a thing in 2000?

Not universally, no. And even if their camera did, no guarantee they used it or kept the file.

Isn't that perjury? Shouldn't he be in jail?

You'd have to prove that the inaccuracy was deliberate and not simply a mistake, which can be very difficult.

As an ex-fashion photographer, I can tell you that people using your photos, without permission, is almost standard. The only way to get people to respect the copyright is to threaten legal action. NB: I am not condoning the actions of this guy, who it seems was offered, I feel, a fair price ($1000) but wanted more, but it is a real issue for small guys who are not lawyers.

From my understanding awarding legal fees (even if someone sues in bad faith) is pretty rare, and even if they are awarded this it is difficult to collect? Any lawyers can chime in if this guy is actually likely to pay this sum?

It is my understanding that if the court orders something, then that is a court order. If you don't follow that order you are in contempt of court and the judge can lock you up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

From consulting with lawyers before I don't think any have said this was a viable option... but maybe what they meant is they can be arrested but I'd still not get any of the money?

Not sure I quite parse that but I think it may be correct that they cannot force somebody to transfer money because they are not the revenue collection arm of the government, but they can lock the person up if they refuse to do that and allow them to consider the relative costs of making a payment vs loss of income and freedom.

You know those notices about damages up to $150,000? My understanding is that’s only for registered copyrights. Copyright you didn’t register only entitles you to actual damages, which would be closer to $0 than the $1000 he was offered.

Bell got nailed by making a huge bluff, very risky.

To me this is not a copyright troll, This is a guy whos photo keeps getting stolen and used without permission, If he was suing anyone using any photo of that skyline not just his then he would be a troll.

Emphasis mine Over the years he filed more than 100 lawsuits for the unauthorized use of an Indianapolis skyline photo he claims to own the rights to. [...] The attorneys use the pressure of federal lawsuits and potential statutory damages of $150,000 to extract high settlement fees from defendants, without fighting a case on its merits. [...] When Bell contacted Carmen Commercial he was offered a $1,000 settlement. However, the attorney wanted more and requested $5,000. He threatened a lawsuit if the real estate company failed to pay up.

He is aggressively greedy, not just protecting his copyright.

He doesn't seem to be able to prove he is the rights holder to that photograph though?

Further to this, in other jurisdictions you would have to litigate this in a court that would not award costs so drastically out of step with the claim. That must be at least part of the problem?

And in fact he was either completely mistaken about several substantial aspects of the photographs or he committed perjury.

The mere fact that 'trivial' Fotos of a skyline are copyright protected indicates that there is something wrong with the system. Fun fact: you are not allowed to take a picture of the Eiffel tower at night and publish it. Your own picture.

I've heard this before and it is mostly false: Only for commercial purposes, since 2016 it is freely available for natural persons to do so in a personal setting.

From wikipedia (easy source in this case, links for more info via them):

> "Since October 7, 2016, article L122-5 of the French Code of Intellectual Property provides for a limited freedom of panorama for works of architecture and sculpture. The code authorizes "reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places (voie publique), and created by natural persons, with the exception of any usage of a commercial character".[20]"

This is the case in most of Europe by the way. Some even allow commercial exploitation.

On this photographer, if the photo is trivial the user of it should have no problem taking their own or paying the (presumably trivial) market rate to license a photo someone else took, no?

Some classes of objects are not under copyright protection because they are ubiquitous or utilitarian. For example the design of clothes can not be copyrighted. You are paying for the material and the production costs, but not for the design, and any competitor can take the same colored cloth and sewing pattern and produce and legally market an exact copy of your clothes.

Skyline fotos, unless being really unique or special, for my understanding fall into the same category. Of course you ought to be paying for material and transportation, which is close to zero for a digital photo.

Copyright is out of whack. The general idea might well be okay and sane, but the implementation has been distorted into something grotesque.

Photographers are having a hard time, since the picture quality of comodity cameras, like the ones built into higher end phones, is really high and the cost for one picture is near zero, resulting in a maelstroem of really nice photos produced by a plethora of clicking monkeys.

Professional photography is being pushed into a niche profession.

From the article:

> The court correctly mentions that Bell has filed many lawsuits over the ‘skyline’ photograph. It also notes that other judges have mentioned that his motive appears to be to extract quick and easy settlements instead of protecting his copyrights.

It's not protecting if you are in it to get rich.

That’s exactly what you protect copyright for

That is a very large sum of money, I hope he was a Troll, if not, they ruined a guy's life over a misunderstanding...

He brought it on himself by aggressively suing people and businesses for life-ruining amounts of money.

It's like you didn't even read the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com