Photographer sues and wins '£20,000’ ($32,000 US) on copyright infringement

Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
Daybrook said it would not have used the photo had it realised it was not free to use...At the time, lawyer Charles Swan told AP he believed there was ‘massive ignorance out there and people often think that images posted online are free to use'.
Click to expand...


Not buying it. Daybrook knew darn well they should have paid for the image.

1) They swipe the image from the internet.
2) Photographer sends them a bill for 1,351.
3) They offer payment of 150 (which is just a slap in the face, take it or leave it/go f*ck yourself response).

Sorry, but you can't be in the promotions business and not know that you have to pay for copyrighted works...especially when day to day operations are dealing with recording artists.

The problem with so many amateurs in this business is that they're willing to give away their work for free or for a simple blurb or "photo credit". 95% wouldn't have even gone so far as to send a bill, they would just be excited that someone is using their photo. Of those who actually had the stones to send a bill, most of those would've accepted the 150 and thought they got something out of the deal.

Good on this guy for sticking to his guns and getting what he rightfully deserved.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I agree with Browncoat as well. Also, this line from the article, "it did not focus on whether Daybrook had breached copyright and the court did not rule on this aspect", seems to leave no legal precedent for anyone else to use in future claims, so the rest of us are still at square one.
 
Top