Hi all. Im trying to figure out what happens if one of these goes to court. For most of us I think innocent infringment would be easy enough to prove. Also, I'm guessing that for most of us the copyright wasnt registered. That leaves actual damages, the way I understand it, as the maximum Getty would be able to get.
I did some searching and found a case talked about here:
http://www.photosource.com/channel/psn/2004/10_27.txtwhere it appears to me that the court rejected the notion of multipliers and penalties added to actual damages. The following quotes from the article got my attention:
" "in litigated cases, infringement does not make a copyright more valuable.""
Im trying to figure out how much I might have injured or damaged the market value of Getty's copyright. I never would have paid anywhere near the 4 figures they are asking for the little photo (nor would I have stolen it, btw). I simply would have instructed our [third party] web page developer to find something for $5 or less or to just not use any photos at all. So how could Getty have been "damaged" by my innocent infringement? I say the damage related to lost license fees is closer to $5 ... would a judge agree?
Also, isnt Getty saying they are also trying to recover costs of finding the infringement? I wouldnt think that could be considered a damage caused by the infringement, as this cost would have been incurred whether or not they had found the infringement.
So, the way I see it, from my layman's point of view, the most I feel I would owe Getty would be a few bucks for the time it took the intern to write me the letter to ask me to take the photo down and whatever a similar photo ($5?) would have cost at places where people like me would shop for photos.
any thoughts?? what would a judge be likely to award Getty for the innocent infringement of a single photo?