Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

But there is still the matter of compensation that is due for the use he did make! Takedown or destroying the copied work only prevents the continuation of the original infringment; it does not or excuse or delete it. The original infringment is still a matter of fact, indeed destroying the art worlks is tantamount to admititing it. I had the same when a magazine took down some image and effectively admitted the infringement; I wrote again with my compernsation claim got the money soon after.

 

Where there any others that he may have sold?

All the more reason not t let go, and it could, after it's all over, quite possibly make a great, saleable news story Sheila.

 

With supporting photographs... to which you own the copyright!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But there is still the matter of compensation that is due for the use he did make! Takedown or destroying the copied work only prevents the continuation of the original infringment; it does not or excuse or delete it. The original infringment is still a matter of fact, indeed destroying the art worlks is tantamount to admititing it. I had the same when a magazine took down some image and effectively admitted the infringement; I wrote again with my compernsation claim got the money soon after.

 

Where there any others that he may have sold?

All the more reason not t let go, and it could, after it's all over, quite possibly make a great, saleable news story Sheila.

 

With supporting photographs... to which you own the copyright!

 

 

But unforunately not of the pictures of the destroyed canvasses.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguably Sheila owns the rights to them as well- as they're not original they may not qualify for copyright themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheila may rights over the ripped off canvases, not the photo of ripped up canvasses ;) . Thatwill be presumably be different enough to not constitute copy over which Sheila can claim copyright.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot for the life of me understand why this is being discussed in such detail in an open forum. As no one's actions have yet been considered by a court of law, common sense to me demands the utmost caution, and it doesn't take much imagination to speculate on just what an adversarial lawyer would make of some of the things being said here.

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give some more detail on that? If a defendant is outside the EU my understanding is that he's beyond the reach of the UK courts.

Sheila needs only an English address for service of documents to issue a claim as the infringement is within the jurisdiction.

 

Not necessarily. I had to fill in the claim forms and fill in a form for 'Service out of the Jurisdiction' and then serve the papers myself (by international post)

 

On the day the claim was decided, in our favour, we were in court and the defendant was on the phone from Finland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you said the defendant was outside the EU. Finland isn't.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you said the defendant was outside the EU. Finland isn't.

Depends if it was pre 1995...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.