TokyoM1ke Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Arguably Sheila owns the rights to them as well- as they're not original they may not qualify for copyright themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thyrsis Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I thought you said the defendant was outside the EU. Finland isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I thought you said the defendant was outside the EU. Finland isn't. Depends if it was pre 1995... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.