Topics

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / The United States Constitution's Eighth Amendment

« on: January 27, 2012, 12:30:01 AM »

Unless you are extremely knowledgeable in IP law (I have spoken to a 24+ year prosecutor who said I am too stupid to know enough about that subject - So how the heck should John Doe?), have deliberately abused copyright laws, and have made a ton of money doing so (in which case you have no ones sympathy here)....then you can always embrace "due process", go to court, and challenge some insane demand on the grounds that it violates your constitutional rights based on the totality of circumstances as it relates to the demand/requested damages (actual (if he should have been paid $25 for his photo authorization, is 5X that more than fair ($125) vs statutory (should this be, and or are the courts leaning in the direction that statutory damages are more intended as a punitive tool to profiteers) - is the demand a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the constitution - on the "innocent"/ignorant/no profit made/photo has a zero relationship to your business/etc.. scenarios, I sure as heck think so. All laws are based on the "spirit" of the statute. What is your opinion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Excessive_fines

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Carolyn Wright - Photo Attorney

« on: January 22, 2012, 12:31:28 AM »

Has anyone read this?: http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3247

Is Carolyn Wright consenting that her legal authority is limited to Nevada in the bottom of this post?

Why doesn't the law require that all web based photos be "read only" files until rights are secured and the photos delivered securely, as a service to the majority who know little about IP law and assume that they are not profiting so what is the issue? Read only files would eliminate this. Leaving web-based photos that can be copied, borders on "abandoned property". If a photo is worth $9000 (this isn't a signed Ansel Adams), then why don't these photographers treat their photos as if they were? I would not leave a $9000 Rolex, outdoors, unprotected, and 2 feet onto posted property....and then when someone comes on the property and takes the watch litigate for theft. Read only photo files would be in the best interest of all sides. How one treats their property, infers their perceived value? If they aren't "trollers", then why do they "bait" the web, when they could market and protect with "read only" files?