Photographer Sues State Of Texas For Using Image From His Photograph On Auto Inspection Stickers
from the even-governments-think-it's-ok-to-copy dept
Jon Snow points us to the story of a photographer who discovered that a photograph he took of a cowboy hoisting a saddle is being used as the background image on approximately 4.5 million inspection stickers:Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, inspection stickers, photograph, texas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, the copyright owner could always elect to seek actual damages instead of statutory damages, and argue that you owe some reasonable royalty/license fee for each use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As such a government fine is a levy shared among the entire (tax paying) population.
Fining an individual or a company works as they can't just unilaterally make more money to cover the fine (as if they could have made more money, they would have done so regardless of the fine)
Fining a government only works to the extent that someone now has hassle to decide how to recoup the fine - higher tax, more debt or even print money (I doubt that budgets would be cut). Not quite a problem on the same scale of an individual/corporate fine.
Of course, enough fines of decent size and people will start to get annoyed with government incompetence - but likely as not the government would head that off by somehow exempting themselves from the fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since federal law does not apply, the rights holder is not necessarily without recourse since most state constitutions provide for state liability in cases such as this. In other words, the claim is not based upon federal law, but upon state law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't it be nice if.....?
Let see.... say $60,000 per count? I make that ummm $270 billion? I'd lay a small wager copyright reform might loom a little larger on the political agenda then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be nice if.....?
I'll take that bet and I'll bet you again that judicial reform comes first...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wouldn't it be nice if.....?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be nice if.....?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying off ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paying off ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paying off ...
I understand that nations create laws and a great many of them have laws to limit immigrants, but I don't understand (except to the degree meant as humor, and it was a little funny) how someone born in one country with certain benefits would think they hold anything over someone else that had the much less fortune of having been born in a potentially significantly less desirable location.
Should the natives of this land as was the case around the 16th century have expelled the Europeans and any others that dared "claim" the land in the name of some aristocratic patron or other? Are not 99% of all US citizens today immigrants or descendants of immigrants if we go back far enough? [ignore for a moment the technicality of all your ancestors having come from those that inhabited this land around 1790]
And another point is that many illegal immigrants do work hard and frequently harder than numerous citizens. Many surely do not, but I hope anyone suggesting in earnest a solution to illegal immigration is not lumping everyone in the same "boat", whether that be the Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria, or any other craft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paying off ...
That would be "immigrant"
>> have laws to limit immigrants
That would be "to limit immigration"
I'm sure I made other mistakes. Please don't get offended for bits of sloppiness here and there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infringement
Of course not all the facts are presented but it sure looks as if TX is in the hotseat here. I certainly hope this photog makes good on his claim and is properly compensated. Governments at all levels claiming "sovereign immunity" is a huge, stinking load of BS. I wonder how much longer the American people are going to allow this BS to continue? TX should give the photog a few million and call it even. What will happen is they will waste millions in litigation instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
redo title too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a nutshell, as we all know, budgets are created by legislative branches of government. In Texas, only the legislature can budget the payment of a judgment. To put it another way, a court cannot force the payment of a judgment by the state of Texas, or any city or municipality of Texas.
Even if you get a judgment against the government in Texas, you have to go through all the rigmarole to get the state legislature to pass a budget to get your money, which is completely their discretion. That rarely happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ima Fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appears that it is a State Publication
4200 Smith School Road, Bldg. D
Austin, TX 78744
Phone: (800) 937-9393
Fax: (512) 389-8397
E-mail: magazine@tpwd.state.tx.us
Depending on his agreement when he sold them the photo, he may not have a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully, he can make something positive out of this and at least use the publicity in some way to make money in other ways as a photographer.
In reality, expecting to get paid everytime for usage of something that you create is a pretty unrealistic expectation that is next to impossible to attain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm
The state does not profit from the use of the image, therefore should it fall under fair use?
If the photographer has been selling the image, how can he claim damages? It isnt as if someone who gets their new inspection sticker isnt going to buy his work now. I would think someone might be MORE likely to seek out the photograper and buy works from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm
The notion you have regarding fractions of work altered is a myth. Furthermore, fair use only protects those using copyrighted material for non-profit satire or educational purposes.
Also, the photographer didn't "sell" his photograph in the past the way you seem to imagine, he licensed the usage of it. If he wrote his contract properly, then he stipulated a geographic location, method of reproduction and time-frame of reproduction, and collected a fee for those specific usage rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm
That is not correct, a commercial use of a work can absolutely be fair use, depending on the balance of these four factors:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken,
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
What you mentioned is only number 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you use the Jammie Thomas case as a precedent...
According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
It was 24 songs, the final judgment was 54,000.00
$2250.00 per infringement.
In this case then, with 4.5 Million 'infringements' - the amount they could sue for - AND use the Jammie Thomas case to establish the precedent would be: $10,125,000,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe...
Not sure that would be so easy. Would part of the potential market have been licensing use of the image for auto inspection stickers? If so, it most certainly has significantly impacted his potential 'market' for licensing sales.
PLUS in addition to that - conceptually, the artist could say that since the image is now 'common' on Auto Inspection stickers, that it will be harder to sell the original image as it's not really 'unique' and most would associate the image with the auto inspection sticker.
So instead of a comment about the 'cool looking cowboy picture' on the wall, the comment would be 'why do you have a more detailed copy of the auto inspection sticker' - etc..
Kinda like the difference between having an original painting of a Cowboy as 'art' - in comparison to having an image of the Marlboro man on the wall. Wouldn't it? I think they could make that argument. Overly popular 'pop-art' and it's value is much different from original/unique art - I would think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I admit, I like the picture, it's certainly artistic. I'm not a particular fan of 'cowboy' art, but I know someone who is and some art like that would certainly interest them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have no idea what Texas expected, though. It's not like prisoners could stage their own photo shoot. Granted a guy with a ball and chain may have been more appropriate, but the budget for a camera probably doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell you what, let the governor buy him a beer and call it square.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did he choose it himself?
If so "oh the irony"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, the maximum statutory damages available in this case would be $30,000 (or $150,000 if willful infringement is shown).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words, the maximum statutory damages available in this case would be $30,000 (or $150,000 if willful infringement is shown).
You're right, but don't expect Mike to admit it. Mike doesn't let a silly little thing like reality cramp his style when he's complaining about IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heh. What I get for replying to comments in order, instead of reading through them all first.
Anyway, just want to point out that the above is not at all true. I admit to being wrong quite frequently. But only when I am, actually, wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ahh! Good point... Though, is that really the case? If someone makes a single counterfeit CD do they face the same damages as if they made 100,000 counterfeit CDs? If so, that seems odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yep.
Of course, if you made a single counterfeit CD, nobody would care.
If you did sue, good luck in getting the jury to grant damages above the statutory minimum. (Though with the Thomas case, who knows.)
On the other hand, someone who made 100,000 counterfeit CD's and sold them, would likely be sued for actual damages, since those can be proven in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, there are other "counterfeit"-specific laws and I haven't looked up the penalties/damages for those recently, so I'm not sure.
In a case where someone's selling 100,000 counterfeit CD's, the infringer's profits and/or actual damages may add up to more than the maximum statutory damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A matter of nuance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marlboro should sue!
Maybe I am moron in a hurry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$150K x 4.5Million, x3 (trebled) WORKS FOR ME!
Cash on the whiskey barrel SON!
Couldn't happen to a better bunch of sleaze. Maybe some of the patent/ip/copyright trollists down there in east TX can chip in a few nights worth of bar tabs and they can cover it in a few hours...
Sometimes the system does work, as whole is fubar'd but in this case... CHACHING!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright owners have the exclusive right to "prepare derivative works," and this would be an example of a "derivative work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This
There must be a hundred shots like this on royalty free stock libraries though - they really should have checked their sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright infringement
Well, yes, DUH! The State is us; if we pay, we have a lot of innocent people who had nothing to do with infringement being pounded. Additionally, an individual likely got some financial gain that should go to the holder, with the State official? If there was financial gain, they should go to jail; that isn't what their office is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prisoners
Does anyone else find this more disturbing than the actual copyright lawsuit?
How bad is Texas' economy where they hire prisoners as graphic designers? And is this happening nation-wide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]