The client came to us with a $15,000 legal claim for ONE counterfeit photo. The copyright owner retained a law firm and, after lengthy negotiations, we were able to settle the matter for $2,000 with acceptable settlement terms. NOTE: There are many different types of cases in the world of photo counterfeiting: Given our long-standing view that courts “must necessarily engage in some degree of speculation” when assessing copyright damages, i.e. at age 14, some difficulties in quantifying the damages attributable to infringement should not preclude recovery. See 4 Nimmer §14.02[A], pp. 14-12 (“Certainty does not preclude the assertion of actual damage where there is uncertainty as to the amount, but not as to whether the actual damage is attributable to the infringement. »); II Paul Goldstein, Copyright § 12.1.1, at 12:6 (2nd ed. 2000) (“Once the copyright owner proves a connection between the infringement and the damage, uncertainty as to the amount of damages does not preclude an award.”); Szekely, 242 F.2d to 269 (where “the offence is certain . [W]e should not allow it to be difficult to determine precisely the value of the destroyed right, which results largely from the destruction, in order to allow the infringer to flee without compensating the right holder. Received his stupid letter in the mail. I do not respond to his legal arguments and I am a lawyer. The infringement alleged by PHOTOCLAIM consists in the use of a photograph on a website without the authorization of the author and without financial compensation to the copyright holder. Under the terms of this second letter/email, the law firm is seeking payment of compensation: You may have received a letter of claim or a California copyright infringement lawsuit from Sanders Law Group.
You are admitted to the California Bar. We can help you defend these cases. None of these approaches is necessarily less speculative than the one that requires the court to determine the market value of the royalty for what the infringer has taken. In fact, it can be much less. Many copyright owners are represented by agents who have set tariffs that are paid regularly by licensees. In such cases, the determination of the market value of the royalty withdrawn from the owner is no more speculative than the determination of damage in the case of a stolen shipment of timber or potatoes. NOTE: Click here if you are looking for information about our Arizona Photo and Video Copyright Recovery Program. Our German law firm specialises in intellectual property and copyright law and has successfully defended more than 1000 clients in copyright proceedings. A classic element of the plaintiff`s copyright damage is the profits that the plaintiff would have made but for the infringement of third parties. See 4 Nimmer §14.02[A], pp. 14-9-10.
That measure requires the Court to examine the counterfactual hypothesis of the contracts and licences which the applicant would have concluded in the absence of the infringement and the costs which it would have incurred. See Fitzgerald Publ`g, 807 F.2d, at p. 1118 (actual harm is measured by “the profits that the plaintiff could have realized in the absence of the infringement”); Stevens Linen Assocs. v Mastercraft Corp., 656 F.2d 11, 15 (2d Cir. 1981) (ibid.). Haha, that Feckner guy, what a gangster. After receiving an email with completely false accusations (we have a cooking site and take our own photos), I googled it to find out more. In addition to this article, there is a link to serious dirt about it on a special website, www.fechner-legal-letters.com.
We received the same complaint by email. I made the mistake of patiently and politely answering and explaining that it was a scam. It only made things worse. I`m going to ignore it from now on. What`s strange is that we didn`t use the photo in question, it had to be a hack of our website to embed it. Isn`t that something we can complain about (if we can find out who hacked and added this photo)? It seems criminal to embed a photo and then claim a violation. Isn`t piracy legal? F**ck Fechner. This guy is complete scum and has no legal status, only fears. Delete images if you are unsure of their ownership, but do not respond to them or anyone from Photography Defender or Photo Claim.
A friend in the U.S. has been receiving repeated emails from Fechner since September 2020. The friend had used an image on a website without knowing that Fechner`s client claimed to own the copyright to the image. Freund immediately removed the photo, but repeatedly receives letters from Fechner asking for damages, legal fees, etc. Freund continued to ignore the letters. No legal action has been taken against Friend. I am posting this information so that others can learn about another case of letters without taking legal action. I received a cease and desist letter from a German company called Zielinski Legal that works with a company called PhotoClaim because I used an image of a photographer in one of my blog posts in 2015. They demand that I remove the photo AND refund the copyright infringement and damages. Do I need to find a German copyright lawyer? Do they have to prove that my image really hurt their client? Any other recommendations? I guess this is a common problem among photographers, but I don`t want to dismiss it. JUDGMENT IS HEREBY GRANTED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF Michael Grecco Productions, Inc.
d/b/a/ Michael Grecco Photography, Inc. against defendant Wrapmarket, LLC pursuant to the terms of the court order granting the plaintiff`s request for default judgment.
Comments are closed.