And for your enjoyment here is the first batch of nuggets concerning our newest stock image copyright troll "Skank" Larry Zerner
The below quote is directly from one of his most enlightening blog articles:
Court Rules "Skank" is Not Defamatory: In case you were worrying about being sued for calling someone a "skank," the California Supreme Court has said, "It's okay." In the case of Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., Jennifer Seelig, one of the losing contestants on the television show Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, sued San Francisco radio DJ Vincent Crackhorn, as well as the station, for referring to her on the air as a "chicken butt," "local loser" and "big skank." The California Court of Appeals struck down her lawsuit, ruling that the terms mentioned above were simply hyperbole and could not be proven true or false. So, go ahead, call someone a "skank;" you might get punched, but you can't get sued.
and now for the image in question:
IS THIS IMAGE WORTH 5k???This is a must read article from Zerner himself....apparently he wrote it, but never read it!!
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2).
Notice the underlined words. The statute does not say that for willful infringement, the court must award at least $150,000. The statute says that $150,000 is the most the court can award for statutory damages, but it’s entirely discretionary. The court can even award damages as low as $200 if it finds the infringement to be innocent.
But many people assume that I will jump at the chance to represent them on a contingency fee basis, because I will certainly be able to get a jury to award damages of $150,000 The problem is that they are not looking at the case realistically. Reader, ask yourself this question. If you were on a jury and had to decide statutory damages on a case where the sole infringement was that a photograph was put up on a website, are you going to give that photographer $150,000. Probably not. Most likely, you will ask yourself how much damages the photographer actually incurred and base your award on that number.
read the entire skanky article here:
http://zernerlaw.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/you-infringed-my-copyright-you-owe-me-150000-um-not-so-fast/Thens there is this little gem:
"All of these excuses are not only wrong, but they are also potentially costing the photographer tens of thousands of dollars. This article will explain why registering your photos with the Copyright Office has never been easier–and how a registration could mean the difference between getting rich or getting ripped-off."
he said getting rich and getting ripped off in the same sentence!..
http://www.modelmayhem.com/education/photography/282-no-excuses-why-all-photographers-need-to-copyright-their-workThe single case I have found thus far in regards to litigation experience...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81394146/Reply-Mot-Dismiss-DC-Comics-v-Mark-TowleHomepage:
http://www.zernerlaw.com/Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/larryzerner?fref=tsTwitter:
https://twitter.com/ZernerlawAdmitted to Practice in 1991 after a long and "stellar" acting career:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/155473Maybe we should hook him up with Timothy McCormack and they can do some videos together!
http://www.youtube.com/user/kolshack?feature=results_mainHis claim to fame was appearing in a bit role in one of the cheesiest movies of all times.. Friday the 13th part III
Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Zerner
Show Posts
