fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Is It Ethical To Sue Over Copyright Infringement?

by 49 Comments

Is It Ethical to Sue Over Copyright Infringement

I have been using an online service called  Pixsy to identify and secure payment for the unauthorized use of my work for a while now – with some significant success.

In most cases, Pixsy’s team of licensing experts and global network of law firms are effective in recovering monetary compensation for unauthorized use of a photographer’s work without the need to actually sue or go to court.

A strongly worded letter from a lawyer and the expertise to follow it up are usually all that is required.

However, in some cases the infringing party refuses to pay – or simply ignores Pixsy’s efforts to negotiate a settlement.

The next step is a lawsuit – but this brings up an interesting issue: is it ethical to sue over copyright infringement?

Pixsy Website

Since we’re all photographer’s here, the obvious answer is yes – of course it is ok to sue over copyright infringement.

But when you look at specific cases I sometimes have my doubts – not to mention that a lawsuit is serious business that can have unintended consequences.

I think when we’re talking about corporate copyright infringement by big business or a supermodel posting an image on social media without permission, suing is obviously a legitimate option (but not without serious risks).

It’s also pretty hard to turn down a potential paycheck that even with Pixsy would likely be in the several grand range.

But in many cases the infringing party is a small business, home based business or just a basement blogger – not a global corporation or rich famous person.

Generally Pixsy won’t bother pursuing a case unless they have confirmed that the infringing party has the ability to pay – but in many cases a settlement of even a few thousand dollars could impose a significant hardship on the infringing party.

Once a lawsuit with lawyers and courts are involved the magnitude of the required settlement goes up exponentially.

Is it really ethical for my lawsuit to ruin someone just because they used one of my photos for some random basement business website?

Sure, they probably realized what they did was illegal, but lets be honest – we’ve all pirated music, movies or software – because we didn’t think that there were any real consequences.

If the shoe was on the other foot and say Adobe sued me for $10K for that cracked version of Photoshop that I may or may not have used when I was just starting my business and couldn’t afford anything else – I’d be pretty upset.

On the other hand, legit stock photography (or even hiring a photographer) isn’t exactly expensive. Plus, I think that it is very good for the industry when photographers aggressively pursue monetary compensation for the unauthorized use of their work. Far too many photographers are willing to settle for a simple apology and acknowledgement. Nuts to that – I want to be paid.

Then there are the risks involved with going to court – the biggest risk being that there is no guarantee you’ll win.

Even with ridiculously obvious infringement cases – like with Richard Prince or the Selfie Monkey – once it’s in court there is no telling which way a judge might rule – and the costs of lawyers are way higher than whatever the original copyright infringement might be worth.

The bottom line is if you are on the loosing end in court – you could be on the hook for the defending party’s legal fees – or you could be counter-sued (although Pixsy is somewhat of a buffer between the photographer and the infringing party if things don’t go your way).

Is It Ethical To Sue Over Copyright Infringement?

What do you think – is it ethical to sue over copyright infringement?

Is it ethical not to sue!?

Is is always ethical to sue or do you think there are limits to who should be sued and who shouldn’t?

Is copyright infringement always illegal – or is the “everyone does it so I didn’t know it was wrong” excuse valid?

Is it worth the risk to get tangled up in a lawsuit?

Is copyright dead?

Do you have a story about trying to pursue copyright infringement?

Leave a comment below and let us know what you think!

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailWebsite Responds To Infringement Claim By Paying 15kg of One-Penny Coins A Guide to Plagiarism and Theft in Photography Competitive swimmer in breast stroke glide from underwaterBest Practices To Protect Your Photography Copyright and Pursue Infringement Plant retailer awarded $900K by federal jury in copyright case over stolen photos

  • Ehm. Is it ethical to teach someone a hard lesson in ethics?

  • Yomismo

    I have many of my photos used without consent, an mostly I send a “cease and desist” letter (or email) to avoid further use. I’m not living from this, and have no problem for people to use them for non-commercial purposes, but least they can do is to ask for permision or (if under Creative Commons license) to mention the authorship.

    Not everyone may pay for a photo, but if they are using it on a commercial purpose, they should compensate the author. If they won’t, then one should stand for his rights and enforce it.

  • Is it ethical to steal?

    • Bolkey

      Sometimes, yes.

      • Kirk

        Well, of course there are several difference systems of “ethics.” Depending on the system of ethics one has taken to guide his own actions, almost anything can be argued as “ethical.”
        But more often under most systems, people come to conclusions that are more often, “Not ethical even by my own system, but I’m going to do it anyway ’cause….reasons!”
        And most of the time, stealing falls into that category. I’d like to understand what your ethical system is and your argument that stealing is sometimes ethical within that system.

  • Err yes

  • aleroe

    If you’ve sent a cease and desist letter and the guy still hasn’t taken down your photo, he’s no longer making an innocent mistake and he’s no longer thinking “it’s no big deal; no one will notice”. You’ve given him the opportunity to avoid a lawsuit that would “ruin” him and he declined to take it.

  • pcsmith

    Intellectual property is not a valid form of property. Using the force of government to exert control over others in this way is immoral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXZaOy3gMa4

    • Alex

      so are you going to walk in to best buy, take a couple copies of photoshop or microsoft office, and then use this as your defense when their security team tackles you?

    • den321

      The barbarians are inside the gate.

    • aleroe

      How do you feel about material property? The gov’t uses force to protect that, too.

      Yeah, there’s the argument that information can be copied without degrading the original. But (1) that’s a different argument from the “gov’t should not use force” argument and (2) there IS value in proprietary information that is lost when the information is shared.

      Also, how do you feel about privacy? Information about me has value, and I prefer to keep some of it secret. Is that wrong?

  • What kind of a question is that? It’s copyright infringment. The infringment is unethical, not the punishment.

  • Whats not ethical is someone using my photo without my permission. certainly people will believe copyright is dead if we don’t pursue infringement when it is found. If your feeling guilty about having pirated music, then please feel free to work for free. but to insinuate that people stealing is ok , is not ok. By the way this seems more like an ad for Pixsy than anything else , so is that Ethical??

  • Chris

    Whats not ethical is someone using my photo without my permission. certainly people will believe copyright is dead if we don’t pursue infringement when it is found. If your feeling guilty about having pirated music, then please feel free to work for free. but to insinuate that people stealing is ok , is not ok. By the way this seems more like an ad for Pixsy than anything else , so is that ethical??

  • I’ve never “sued” but I sure have demanded it be removed in X amount of time, or pay up

  • I really can’t be bothered reading the article attached to this headline, because the simple, complete and only answer to the question is “yes”

  • Liam

    “But in many cases the infringing party is a small business, home based business or just a basement blogger – not a global corporation or rich famous person.”

    We as photographers/creatives have a moral duty to educate the public why copyright is so important If a lawsuit puts the fear of God into these low-level infringements then I say sue, just don’t do so with the intent of ruining another business.

  • Well written article that brings up some very valid points. And the comments at the end of the article are better also…

  • “Is it really ethical for my lawsuit to ruin someone just because they used one of my photos for some random basement business website? ”

    SMH. You just lost a follower with this stupid article.

  • catlett

    Theft is theft.

    Is it ethical to sue someone who who steals anything else from you? Yes.

    Is it ethical to break other laws? If so, which ones? Here’s a hint YOU don’t get to just make that list yourself. There are very good reasons laws are enacted and other than extreme dictatorships they aren’t based on the ethics of 1 individual.

    • Bolkey

      It is, but is it always a bad thing? We stole food what we could from the nazi-occupiers to survive the famine in ’45. Shouldn’t we have done that?

      • catlett

        A. The Nazi occupiers were there illegally and stole things in the first place.
        B. If you think that relates in any way to the topic at hand I have no idea how to explain this to you.

        • Bolkey

          If you talks absolutisms than you ought to be absolutely right. Otherwise modify your wording.

  • My blood pressure just rose sharply reading this! One rule for all, small business, large business, blogger etc. If your aim is to simply extract money from large companies who can pay then you’re not going after what is important which is protecting your work, just a pay day.

    • True…but time is money and really the only reason to enforce copyright infringement in the first place is a pay day – so there is a cut-off where unless there is significant cash involved, it’s not worth the time and effort to pursue.

  • Yes

  • absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • blokeinusa

    The movie industry does this whenever they can. At minimum, they have your isp slap you with a letter to take corrective action to shutting you down to suing you.

  • Is it ethical to steal?

    • Bolkey

      Please specify the circumstances…

  • Click bait article intended to get people fired up at the author. Snooooze.

  • What kind of question is this? Does it make sense or the editor forgot and posted a placeholder headline?

  • Paul Willy Brown

    Winning the lawsuit does not mean ever collecting. People that lose and don’t pay… well you have to get the sheriff to go snatch some of their unprotected (state law in US determines) property impounded then sold. You get to pay the sheriff and the impound company and maybe even the auctioneer.

    Needs to be many $thousands to make it worth the trouble, and years to make it all domino.

  • This should not even be a question

    • ThePolyBlog

      Les Muserables fans would disagree 🙂

  • I use Pixsy to find stolen images, but their legal service is crap. It takes them MONTHS to evaluate cases and unless the case involves a multi-billion dollar organization, they will refuse the case.

    The basement blogger can cough up $100 to pay for all my images he stole. But to Pixsy, that’s not worth their time or effort and close the case.

    • It does take some time – and to be honest, I can’t be bothered to chase down people for $100 either – but I get your point.

  • ThePolyBlog

    Too bad 90% of the commenters missed your premise… is it okay to hit someone small with the same big hammer you use against a corporation? Can you execute someone for a small crime because theft is theft? Very Les Miserables of you, as they steal a digital loaf of bread from you that didn’t deprive someone else of eating (no lost business, just unpaid revenue). This makes it the most private of torts… and therefore the most subjective of choices. Far more subtle than the way most people live their lives.

    I have a similar dilemma that is answered as most people here do… I’m working on a self help /tip guide for a narrow niche of people, most of whom wouldn’t pay for it but a draft is quite popular and circulating broadly. Most say to sell it, seems obvious, writers should get paid, but lots of people helped me along the way and didn’t charge me for it. There’s a subtle ethical question buried in my decision at launch that most people can’t see or understand why I would even ask.

    Follow your gut, not your head. And thanks for an intriguing question…

  • Noah Tahl

    Do I have this right? They have used your work for commercial gain and been warned not to and been offered the chance to either stop or pay up, yet they continue? Pixsy has determined the infringers do have resources to pay (not factoring in court costs), but going to court will cost them substantially more than paying first or just stopping the copyright abuse (essentially no cost for that). That strikes me as a very bad business decision on the infringer’s part. You cannot take responsibility for their bad behavior and stupidity. If you subscribe to some form of utilitarianism that requires you to do so, then take this path. Otherwise, sue.

    • Well, they aren’t really given the option to remove it to avoid a claim – so there is no zero-cost way out for the infringer.

  • Eric Dye

    Is it ethical? Yes, of course. Your really asking if it is always the best decision to- which is the old “it depends.”

  • PatrickS

    This is off point to the article, but one thing to note is to get a lawyer who will or even can take your case to court, relies on the fact that the work needs to have been registered with the US copyright office. Yes as soon as you take the picture, you’re technically the copyright owner, BUT without a certificate of registration, that kind of “but I took the picture” copyright is not enforceable in a federal court. You may get an infringer to pay out something from a strongly worded letter threatening a lawsuit which is what I think Pixy mostly does. But if they don’t pay, and you still want to pursue it, and your lawyer is going to actually file an infringement case in federal court (where infringement cases are heard) you have to have a registration. 99% of the photographers I know do not register their work with the US copyright office. I can tell you it can be a long hard road if it gets that far or even gets to litigation, so it is definitely worth considering if the perceived payout worth the time and money, not to mention the stress. And remember a lawyer can take from 30% – 45% of the gross award of the case. Then there is your out of pocket expenses for filing fees and court costs, and it can add up big time from there. A good lawyer with experience should be able to let you know the risks and rewards based on the scope of the infringement.

  • CanonMinolta

    Some thoughts
    1) Department stores and car dealers do not let you steal from them. Nether should photographers
    2) Some photography groups are trying to get a small claims court process set up so the small thieves won’t have to go to federal court
    3) Photographers are able to use federal court for images that they have registered with the copyright office that have been stolen

    And … as an FYI for those that do not know: Intellectual property rights are legal rights granted to the creators of artistic works, such as music, literature, images, designs, discoveries, inventions, & phrases … all of which can be protected as intellectual property. These are protected via trademarks, copyright, patents, industrial design rights, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.

  • Lama Charlotte Mann

    I recently discovered that one of my images showed up on a haunted house Facebook forum. I haven’t sold it, but I do have a signed release from its present owners. I have no idea how that photo ended up being discoverable. As far as I can remember i’ve only posted it in my 500px & Smugmug account galleries, where it is not supposed to be downloadable. The image has been altered (lightening added to the sky to make it more woo-woo) but the angle & details of the building are mine. So I don’t have an immediate monetary loss, but I do have an accountability issue.

    • GeekRedux

      If it wasn’t downloaded, it was simply screen-captured.

  • We’ve never had one lawsuit as infringers always settle before. Commercial uses should be enforced. If the intent was to promote a product or service then why should you work for free? I’m always amazed that infringers think they should pay stock photos prices for getting caught, or less (removal of image only)

  • “you could be on the hook for the defending party’s legal fees – or you could be counter-sued” Most lawyers would not pursue a case that didn’t pass a few tests like; Fair use, A registered image, Proper documentation, etc. Small Claims Court, H.R. 3945 proposal to enforce copyright law without the financial burden of a federal court https://copyrightalliance.org/get-involved/add-your-voice/

  • Whats interesting is the copyright thief will sometimes attempt to label the copyright holder a copyright troll if they attempt to collect a settlement. Beyond all the excuses they come up with for stealing the image they then want to settle for what they could buy a stock photo for, like a ridiculous $5-10. We support photographers going after the largest possible settlement. Protect your copyright and ability to earn a living.

  • The truth

    If your photo is under the Google tag of FREE TO USE AND EDIT EVEN FOR COMMERCIAL distribution in Google you are fucking STRAIGHT UP ENTRAPPING PEOPLE. NOT EVERYONE SEES THAT COPYWRITE….

Recent Posts