Case ruling on use of images from websites

[milouvision]

Useful: http://www.briffa.com/news/current/case302.php

 

 

A recent Patents County Court preliminary decision serves as a stark reminder to those using images from the internet, including from social media sites such as Flickr, that they may be liable for paying a hefty royalty for unauthorised use, even if the use is only of one image.

 

Apologies if already posted.

 

Full: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWPCC/2013/26.html&query=Daybrook&method=boolean

[Andrew Spiers]

This case has not been decided yet. The first hearing was merely to work out damages - guilt has not yet been established.

 

This case is being heard backwards (i.e. damages first) as the amount of damages could change which court track it goes down.

 

Now that damages have been established then there will be a further hearing to establish if an infringement has happened. 

 

(I know the guy involved in this case and had to ask him why it was being dealt with this way around).

 

Andrew

[milouvision]

It's why I quoted the "preliminary decision" aspect.

[spacecadet]

The £5,000-odd is his licence fee. If the defendants don't cave in on damages, the trial will be on the infringement, he will still get his fee plus costs even if there was no infringement.

Very useful. Although the plaintiff took it out of the small claims track when he realised it was worth more than £5000 it started, and could have finished, there. Most encouraging that the usual defendant's nonsense about not knowing they needed permission wasn't even argued because it's so absurd.

[Lionel]

>> http://www.briffa.com/news/current/case302.php

Thanks for report.  Does this law firm specialize in copyright infringements?

How much of the infringement chasing do they handle?

Do they work on contingency?

Jeff, I sure you've followed other threads on this question, but in case not: have you checked posts by DavidC, and looked at www.ImageRights.com?

 

Regards

Lionel

[spacecadet]

Jeff, this is an English case.

The firm is just quoting from the law reports.

The relevance is that it is the first judgement from our new copyright small claims track. A law firm wouldn't take on a case this small because costs are not awarded and we don't have statutory damages. The point of the new court arrangements was precisely to enable photographers to sue for infringement damages themselves without fear of huge costs awards.

[losdemas]

Encouraging stuff and a great precedent if they are found guilty.

[milouvision]

>> http://www.briffa.com/news/current/case302.php

Thanks for report.  Does this law firm specialize in copyright infringements?

How much of the infringement chasing do they handle?

Do they work on contingency?

The law report shows in the opening lines that http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/ (solicitors) act for the claimant and they instructed http://www.hogarthchambers.com/Members/Tom_St_Quintin as barrister.

[Sheila Smart]

Awhile back, I was in contact with Mark Corran of Briffa when I sought his opinion on a UK infringement and he was most helpful and gave advice on copyright infringement BUT ...it is really expensive to pursue an infringement in the UK as generally, UK solicitors have a high hourly rate (in comparison to Australia and the US) and they don't act on a contingency basis due to the possible awarding of costs issue in the UK.  To pursue a matter of about 1,500 pounds would risk a whole lot more if damages were not awarded.  So I gave up and the guy is still probably using my images to this day.  

 

Sheila

[Linda]

I have used imagerights for UK cases and they have a lawfirm they work with there. I think the case was appx $3000USD

 

Linda

[spacecadet]

Awhile back, I was in contact with Mark Corran of Briffa when I sought his opinion on a UK infringement and he was most helpful and gave advice on copyright infringement BUT ...it is really expensive to pursue an infringement in the UK as generally, UK solicitors have a high hourly rate (in comparison to Australia and the US) and they don't act on a contingency basis due to the possible awarding of costs issue in the UK.  To pursue a matter of about 1,500 pounds would risk a whole lot more if damages were not awarded.  So I gave up and the guy is still probably using my images to this day.  

Sheila

Hence the new small claims track for claims up to £5000. But your problem there would be precisely the opposite, that costs are not awarded.

You might ask a friend or relative here to fill in the forms for you. Once you have judgement costs of recovery are awarded.

Google  patents county court small claims track and moneyclaimonline.

http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/patents-county-court-small-claims-track.html

[spacecadet]

The £5,000-odd is his licence fee. If the defendants don't cave in on damages, the trial will be on the infringement, he will still get his fee plus costs even if there was no infringement.

I think I'm wrong about this. The infringement is not admitted so if the defendants don't settle it will go to trial and Sheldon risks his costs. Sounds like open-and shut on the infringement on those facts though. The hearing on quantum gives the defendants an incentive to settle- if they do the costs clock stops.

Note that the judge accepted one of the photographer's own calculations of his fee, in the middle of the range, because be evidenced it. This is important and goes against what a lot of people have assumed up to now, i.e. that you would only recover a minimal fee. He has been awarded 4 times his invoice.