It's always nice to see the "Jedi Master" Oscar chime in here.
The young padawans are listening intently, I'm sure.
Two things MF could do: (1) MF may appeal (likely); (2) MF could now properly register each and every picture individually (provided it has proper assignments from the photographers) and file a new lawsuit provided it's still within three years of the alleged infringement. However, since the pictures were not properly registered at the time of the alleged infringement, MF would only be able to get its "actual damages" and would not be able to get attorney's fees. This makes it unlikely that they will pursue the claim in this fashion. This is especially so since there were a number of other substantive defenses we were prepared to raise in the event the court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. I suspect they will put all their eggs into the appeal basket and I expect that like the plaintiffs in Alaska Stock, they will bring out all the guns and get supporting briefs from the Dept of Justice, and many others.
Logical arguments can be made for or against the validity of registering images in bulk.
But, by and large, the courts are not favoring this method of registration, and I think that it's just a matter of time before it's simply accepted as universally "invalid".
Bulk registration has been plagued with problems as it's often used to strategically hide different kinds of deficiencies pertaining to legal "ownership".
In cases wherein disputes cannot be resolved "amicably" (I hear people snickering, by the way), the courts end up having to sort out the entire mess.
Given the astonishingly high settlements demanded by copyright extortionists, the public at large and indeed the justice system deserve much more proof than bulk registrations provide,
which are very cursory at the best of times.
The concept of "I'm sure that it's in there somewhere... trust me... and send me ten thousand dollars by the way" is laughable.
I'm reminded of the comment about this being an "issue of substantial public importance, given the size and scope of the plaintiff’s alleged image collections",
made by the judge in the Getty vs Advernet" case.
I'm quite willing to bet that there are some big problems in MF's bulk registration.
But, I suspect that MF will try and have another go at it in the hope of simply finding a judge that will simply render a different verdict.
However, if MF loses on appeal, then that sets a very strong precedent against faulty registrations in that court circuit. So, the stakes are quite high overall.
Of course, this always brings up the topic of "damages".
The trend among corporations appears to be based on a model created to offset not only the losses created by infringements, but also all other losses due to all other causes,
plus a tidy profit margin tacked on.
That doesn't sound like a realistic assessment of damages, if you ask me.
The trend among private individuals seems engineered to place them in the six-figures income bracket, even if their creative content is so lacking in value as to make them homeless,
if they had to rely on actual sales.
Like I said before pertaining to copyright extortionists: "Get a haircut and get a real job".
S.G.
Show Posts
