Maybe political campaigns steal photos all the time. Or maybe they don’t and this is just another sign that, in the age of trump, the GOP’s platform is increasingly based on gifting.
I’m Kemp
We’re Republican
WE. BREAK. LAWS.
That means the Governor is going to be writing a big check.
Intellectual property! We don’t need no stinking’ intellectual property!"
Go get 'em!
Profits? Does this mean Liles gets all of Kemp’s graft from being governor?
Depending on how credulous the judge is, taking the credit line and the metadata off could well qualify as wilful.
NAL but it looks like a dunker case of knowing infringement to me. Any political campaign would be expected to know you get permission or pay for this stuff. If it’s contributed there should be a record of what its equivalent monetary value was. This is going to be found money for the photographer.
So how fast will Kemp throw a campaign staffer under the bus?
Evidently Kevin Liles doesn’t understand Rethugliklan copyright law:
“What’s mine is mine. What’s yours is … mine.”
Remarkable.
Political campaigns usually buy stock photos. Rethugliklans buy stock photos of people who would never vote for them.
Liles is the team photographer for the Atlanta Braves.
Federal copyright law provides for statutory damages of up to $30,000, or up to $150,000 if infringement is found to have been committed willfully.
Let’s hope he hits this one out of the park.
Shocking that a man who denied citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote would steal someone’s copyrighted material. Has he said he could shoot someone on Peachtree Street and nothing would happen to him yet?
Poor Georgians. You have a criminal occupying the highest position in your state and country.
Sadly, photographers are routinely ripped off.
Too many know nothing about intellectual property law, and approach things seen on the internet as “free”… or “public domain”
This could be a teachable moment.
Were I involved with the suit, I would stipulate that closure of the case include a published summary of the rights of photographers and the limitations of public use of their work.
Plus if they removed the photog’s copyright management (whether software based or a simple watermark) I would think that would go to prove willfulness and kick in those higher penalties.
Oh yeah. The only source is clearly copyrighted and you take that off? Doesn’t look so good! I think they have to pay to make this go away or take a chance of paying $150K. Gonna be a few phone calls to the liability insurance folks who won’t be smiling about this.
Wait a minute, once the NYT printed the photo it became public domain, everyone knows that.
I’ve been in publishing and content creation all my life and I’ve heard that so. many. times. The worst is when people get a garbled and cursory understanding of the fair use concept. They’re off to the races after that.
They do steal music all the time and are always getting caught at it.