Do EU copyright laws allow people to be sued without proof of financial damage?

dano1066

I run a blog and i have read about bloggers in the USA getting sued by random people for using an image on their blog. In all cases it was simply a banner image for the post and the person who owned the image may have just randomly shared the image online. Even though the author had proof that this blog post made very little money and the copyright owner couldn't prove there was any financial damage incurred by this breach of copyright they still won the case and sued the blogger for a lot of money.

This seems incredibly unfair, but also typical of the USAs love for suing people over everything.

Are there any laws in the EU that prevent a similar scenario. e.g. i take a picture of my cat and post it online, someone else uses it on their blog and i demand $10,000 for damages without any correspondence with the blogger and proof that the money demanded is valid for the claim.

rock22

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that photographers in the US, and elsewhere, will bill for the use of the photograph. the cost of using the photo may be higher because it was used without permission.

This is a way of stopping people use your photograph without permission.

It is a different to breach of copyright

dano1066

It seems unfair that the photographer can do this without at least asking the person to take the image down first, or to pay if they want to continue using it. Does this only apply to photography?

Like if i used a movie wallpaper for a blog post about the new Batman, can someone make me pay damages for this? I mostly deal with video games, which means screenshots of video game content will be used. If i use a screenshot from a youtube video or someone elses gameplay do the same laws apply or does the person actually making the claim need to be the creator of the source material?

Paulw

dano1066 wrote: »

It seems unfair that the photographer can do this without at least asking the person to take the image down first, or to pay if they want to continue using it. Does this only apply to photography?

Why unfair? You are using someone else's work, without their permission. Would you go in to a cinema and watch a film without paying? :eek:

Nope, it doesn't only apply to photography.

dano1066 wrote: »

Like if i used a movie wallpaper for a blog post about the new Batman, can someone make me pay damages for this?

Yep. That artwork is copyright protected.

dano1066 wrote: »

I mostly deal with video games, which means screenshots of video game content will be used.

If you use any content from a game, without the expressed permission of the copyright holder, then you are in breach of copyright.

dano1066

Paulw wrote: »

Why unfair? You are using someone else's work, without their permission. Would you go in to a cinema and watch a film without paying?

Of course not, but when its used for something morally sound, like a blog post and its done without knowing that the image was under copyright, it seems excessive to demand thousands when the blog owner is doing this as a hobby. The claim should at least be determined by the income that the blogger got from this particular post and not a made up number. A warning should at least be issued. A cop wouldn't arrest a baby for robbing an item from a store as the baby was unaware they were doing wrong.

Paulw wrote: »

If you use any content from a game, without the expressed permission of the copyright holder, then you are in breach of copyright.

Does this mean that everyone on youtube who puts up videos of Minecraft or any other games are breaking the law by not obtaining permission from the developers before posting the videos?

Paulw

dano1066 wrote: »

Of course not, but when its used for something morally sound, like a blog post and its done without knowing that the image was under copyrigh

Then, you should assume that every image is copyright protected, unless you know for sure that it is not, or you have a release to use the image. Very simple really.

dano1066 wrote: »

Does this mean that everyone on youtube who puts up videos of Minecraft or any other games are breaking the law by not obtaining permission from the developers before posting the videos?

Technically, yeah, they are in breach of copyright. But there are some exceptions to that.

dano1066

how has the internet gotten this far without everyone on it being sued at some stage?

Looking at joe.ie they use youtube images and tonnes of other pictures of images they didnt create in their blog posts. There has to be a law protecting people from suing them. Without a law it makes blogging a ticking time bomb. Wordpress wouldnt exist without some sort of blanked law to protect users.

It would take days to create a single blog post if the creator were to seek permission for every image posted.

If there isnt some law in place then people will be able to create a website with great search engine indexing, post a ton of useful images and wait for the money to roll in.

whippet

dano1066 wrote: »

A cop wouldn't arrest a baby for robbing an item from a store as the baby was unaware they were doing wrong.

Ignorance of the law isn't a defence.

I can't drink and drive and then say that I wasn't aware it was illegal and expect to get away with it

flyingsnail

dano1066 wrote: »

how has the internet gotten this far without everyone on it being sued at some stage?

Looking at joe.ie they use youtube images and tonnes of other pictures of images they didnt create in their blog posts. There has to be a law protecting people from suing them. Without a law it makes blogging a ticking time bomb. Wordpress wouldnt exist without some sort of blanked law to protect users.

It would take days to create a single blog post if the creator were to seek permission for every image posted.

If there isnt some law in place then people will be able to create a website with great search engine indexing, post a ton of useful images and wait for the money to roll in.

Its pretty simple to not get sued, either create the image yourself or get permission or purchase the image. There are plenty of sites out there that will sell or even allow free usage of images but just because the image is on the internet does not mean it is free to use. The same way you took time and effort to create your blog post the photographer took time and effort to create the image and both have copyright protection.

dano1066

whippet wrote: »

Ignorance of the law isn't a defence.

I can't drink and drive and then say that I wasn't aware it was illegal and expect to get away with it

Agreed, but the punishment should fit the crime. There is also a level of common sense that has to come into play along with morals. A drink driving offence could kill someone, uploading an image hurts absolutely no one. It doesnt seem right that someone gets sued for thousands for uploading an image and someone who risks the lives of others gets fined a few hundred (which seems quite easy to get out of).

flyingsnail wrote: »

Its pretty simple to not get sued, either create the image yourself or get permission or purchase the image.

This most definitely does not happen on a regular basis and this is where my question is coming from. I understand the copyright law still exists regardless, but how are major websites avoiding getting sued? There has to be a law to stop it from happening. Creating images is not logical and is not what major websites are doing. Often websites make a post within minutes of a tweet being made. They use the exact image from the tweet etc.

flyingsnail

Quite often you will see big organizations as twitter or youtube users permission before posting. Have a look over in the photography section of boards a quite often you will see posts along the lines of “newspaper use my image without permission” most of these would be settled via phone calls or emails with the photo editor and may never need to get to the point of a law suit.

Also just because somebody else is doing it does not make it legal.

Uno my Uno.

dano1066 wrote: »

Agreed, but the punishment should fit the crime. There is also a level of common sense that has to come into play along with morals. A drink driving offence could kill someone, uploading an image hurts absolutely no one. It doesnt seem right that someone gets sued for thousands for uploading an image and someone who risks the lives of others gets fined a few hundred (which seems quite easy to get out of).



This most definitely does not happen on a regular basis and this is where my question is coming from. I understand the copyright law still exists regardless, but how are major websites avoiding getting sued? There has to be a law to stop it from happening. Creating images is not logical and is not what major websites are doing. Often websites make a post within minutes of a tweet being made. They use the exact image from the tweet etc.

You say it hurts no one but you might not feel the same way if it was your image or photo that was used without your permission.

Major websites do create their own images and they do obtain permission for other images they use. This is done either through agreements with agencies or on an individual basis, and yes they usually pay for the use of those images. Sometimes images/photos are published under what is called a "Creative Commons" which allows them to be used for specific purposes for free.

So why is the rampant copyright theft on the internet not addressed? Simply because there is little to be gained from it, if I post a picture on the Internet and some teenager copies it and posts it on their tumblr there is no point in me sueing them, an award for €10,000 against them is no use to me, they don't have any money to pay me.

Peregrinus

dano1066 wrote: »

Agreed, but the punishment should fit the crime. There is also a level of common sense that has to come into play along with morals. A drink driving offence could kill someone, uploading an image hurts absolutely no one. It doesnt seem right that someone gets sued for thousands for uploading an image and someone who risks the lives of others gets fined a few hundred (which seems quite easy to get out of).

I doubt that many people are being "sued for thousands" for copyright infringement. Or, if they are, I doubt if many are being sued successfully.

The measure of damages for copyright infringement is usually a "reasonable licence fee". In other words, if you had asked the owner to licence his work to you to use on your website (or wherever), what is a reasonable fee that a reasonable copyright owner would have sought? This very much depends on the circumstances - what creative work are you using, how signficant is it overall in the composition of your website, and what kind of website is it? If you're a spotty teenager writing a blog full of angst and self-affirmation, and you invadvertantly use a copyrighted image of a soulful teenager instead of one of the million rights-free images out there, and your blog has a readership of 6, and generates no revenue, that's one thing. But if you're using the image in a commercial venture, and it's a unique and striking image whose use substantially enhances the impact or appeal of your website, that's another.

BoatMad

dano1066 wrote: »

how has the internet gotten this far without everyone on it being sued at some stage?

because pursuing copyright infringement is in general a futile undertaking , where there is little hope of renumeration

Looking at joe.ie they use youtube images and tonnes of other pictures of images they didnt create in their blog posts. There has to be a law protecting people from suing them. Without a law it makes blogging a ticking time bomb. Wordpress wouldnt exist without some sort of blanked law to protect users.

There is no law, copyright is copyright,

HOWEVER, many sites where you the author publishes information , have a implicit license that says you gave them permission to publish it. However a blogger using a picture in full may well be contravening copyright

Note that this the concept of " fair dealing" in EU copyright as their is in the US, that allows certain uses of copyright material , simply by acknowledging the author, this extends to reviews of the material , certain educational uses, or public interest . its quite a vague concept

It would take days to create a single blog post if the creator were to seek permission for every image posted.

yup , but its what the law requires and newspapers for example have teams of people that ensure its done

If there isnt some law in place then people will be able to create a website with great search engine indexing, post a ton of useful images and wait for the money to roll in.

yep, getty images being one. Microsoft being another

salamanca22

Every piece of art is automatically copy written. If you use someone elses work without their permissions they have the right to legally recoup recompense from you. It does not matter if you are making money or not, you are stealing someone elses work.

Think of it this way, if you put a stream of the new star wars movie on your blog do you think you are not doing something wrong? Probably yes, but it is the exact same scenario just swap the material around.

BoatMad

salamanca22 wrote: »

Every piece of art is automatically copy written. If you use someone elses work without their permissions they have the right to legally recoup recompense from you. It does not matter if you are making money or not, you are stealing someone elses work.

..

correct , but as I have said there are exceptions known as " fair dealing", how ever in all cases the copyright acknowledgement must be made. a typical example of fair dealing is private educational use

Paulw

An interesting read, very applicable.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/scottish-theatre-company-fined-for-using-dylan-thomas-photo-1.2420332

Nate--IRL--

Here is a slightly different case I've become caught up in. IMRO are currently attempting to invoice a client of mine, for the Music used for their phone system while on hold.

This music is an embedded 30 second loop built in to the phone system by the manufacturer, the music is owned and composed by the manufacturer - despite this IMRO are insisting that they be paid €250 per year, because this music is heard by the public.

Legally I don't know what the position is. I can't get the Phone company to provide us with copyright/licence documentation, and I can't get IMRO to prove it is a copyrighted piece of music.

Are they just chancing their arm?

Nate

salamanca22

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Here is a slightly different case I've become caught up in. IMRO are currently attempting to invoice a client of mine, for the Music used for their phone system while on hold.

This music is an embedded 30 second loop built in to the phone system by the manufacturer, the music is owned and composed by the manufacturer - despite this IMRO are insisting that they be paid €250 per year, because this music is heard by the public.

Legally I don't know what the position is. I can't get the Phone company to provide us with copyright/licence documentation, and I can't get IMRO to prove it is a copyrighted piece of music.

Are they just chancing their arm?

Nate

Don't IMRO only protect their clients property?

I would ignore them if you were sure the music does not belong to one of their clients.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951



salamanca22 wrote:

Every piece of art is automatically copy written. If you use someone elses work without their permissions they have the right to legally recoup recompense from you. It does not matter if you are making money or not, you are stealing someone elses work.

..

No it is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.

Theft is a different animal entirely.

Johnboy1951

Paulw wrote: »

An interesting read, very applicable.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/scottish-theatre-company-fined-for-using-dylan-thomas-photo-1.2420332

That sort of thing makes my blood boil.

On request the image was taken down and obviously there was no commercial harm as the image is not yet being used commercially .... only a reference to a possible commercial use in the future.

flyingsnail

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That sort of thing makes my blood boil.

On request the image was taken down and obviously there was no commercial harm as the image is not yet being used commercially .... only a reference to a possible commercial use in the future.

Which part the copyright infringement or the lawsuit?
For me the copyright infringement makes my blood boil, to me it seems pretty clear they were using it to promote themselves.

It was agreed by both parties the image was used on the theatre company’s Storify social media page, which had seven followers at the time, as part of a promotion for a series of plays scheduled to coincide with last year’s Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

salamanca22

Johnboy1951 wrote: »





No it is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.

Theft is a different animal entirely.

Semantics in this case really. You know what I meant.

Peregrinus

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

. . . the music is owned and composed by the manufacturer . . .

How can you know this, if . . .

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

. . . I can't get the Phone company to provide us with copyright/licence documentation

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are they just chancing their arm?

They may be. Or the phone company may be. Or the manufacturer's composition could be, um, strikingly similar to an earlier piece to which someone else owns the rights, and this infringement action could boil down to a plagiarism action.

There's a reason why most phone systems just play "Greensleeves".

perry123

Op is it OK for me to use some of your blog posts free to have some text accompanying my photos on a new photo site I am planning? Free of course...

Johnboy1951

flyingsnail wrote: »

Which part the copyright infringement or the lawsuit?
For me the copyright infringement makes my blood boil, to me it seems pretty clear they were using it to promote themselves.

The lawsuit.

It was unnecessary as the take down request was complied with.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

challengemaster

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The lawsuit.

It was unnecessary as the take down request was complied with.

The request may have been complied with - but that's not really a deterrent against doing it again, is it? Having to stump up €1500 is a good reminder in the future that you can't just do whatever you feel like with other peoples copyrighted work.

Johnboy1951

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it was a repeat offence I could understand that ...... there is no information that it was.

There was no commercial damage.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

salamanca22

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If it was a repeat offence I could understand that ...... there is no information that it was.

There was no commercial damage.

They had a no tolerance policy. They sue on the first violation in the same vein that some shops have a no tolerance policy on stealing and they will call the guards for a 50c bar being stolen.

A violation is a violation. It's an expensive lesson to learn but there you go.

bpmurray

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There was no commercial damage.

I find it hard that people don't understand copyright. It's really, really simple. You expect to be paid for your work, just as a writer or photographer does for his/her work. If you use their work without paying, you will be subject to a take-down notice AND to pay the fee for use. If you annoy the copyright owner, you'll probably provoke a law suit with the associated legal costs (yours and the copyright-holder's) as well as punitive damages.

So, if you infringe copyright, the only sensible action is to apologise and pay the fee - you'll probably be allowed to keep the image on your blog for that. The fee will range from around €300 to perhaps €30000 if it's a prize-winning photographer.

There is, of course, an exception - fair use. This often applies in situations where you are parodying the copyrighted work, although it's usually safer to ensure that the copyright owner is OK with that before starting (Weird Al apparently always got approval for his parodies).

Johnboy1951

bpmurray wrote: »

I find it hard that people don't understand copyright. It's really, really simple. You expect to be paid for your work, just as a writer or photographer does for his/her work. If you use their work without paying, you will be subject to a take-down notice AND to pay the fee for use. If you annoy the copyright owner, you'll probably provoke a law suit with the associated legal costs (yours and the copyright-holder's) as well as punitive damages.

So, if you infringe copyright, the only sensible action is to apologise and pay the fee - you'll probably be allowed to keep the image on your blog for that. The fee will range from around €300 to perhaps €30000 if it's a prize-winning photographer.

There is, of course, an exception - fair use. This often applies in situations where you are parodying the copyrighted work, although it's usually safer to ensure that the copyright owner is OK with that before starting (Weird Al apparently always got approval for his parodies).

What in my post implied to you that I did not understand copyright?

Certainly it could not have been the part quoted.

salamanca22 wrote:

They had a no tolerance policy. They sue on the first violation in the same vein that some shops have a no tolerance policy on stealing and they will call the guards for a 50c bar being stolen.

A violation is a violation. It's an expensive lesson to learn but there you go.

Yeah, but the comparison with the shop theft really points up what I mean ....... has there ever been a court case for such a theft with a €1500 fine? ..... or even gone to court for a first offence?
But as I said earlier, theft is a different animal

salamanca22

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yeah, but the comparison with the shop theft really points up what I mean ....... has there ever been a court case for such a theft with a €1500 fine? ..... or even gone to court for a first offence?
But as I said earlier, theft is a different animal

It wasn't a fine. In this case it was punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded for the reason to deter this exact behavior.

BoatMad

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can you know this, if . . .




They may be. Or the phone company may be. Or the manufacturer's composition could be, um, strikingly similar to an earlier piece to which someone else owns the rights, and this infringement action could boil down to a plagiarism action.

There's a reason why most phone systems just play "Greensleeves".

Imro collect dues where any song is played in public ( or to the public ), music on hold has been deemed to be a public playing of music. It doesn't matter if the phone company hold copyright , that just means you don't have to pay the songwriters.

Peregrinus

BoatMad wrote: »

Imro collect dues where any song is played in public ( or to the public ) . . .

Only for songs, the rightsholders to which are represented by IMRO. That's an awful lot of songs, but it's not every song. So if IMRO sues the people playing music-on-hold in this case, it will be up to IMRO to show who holds the rights to the songs being played, and to show that that person has appointed IMRO to represent them.

BoatMad wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the phone company hold copyright , that just means you don't have to pay the songwriters.

Strictly speaking it's not just the copyrights that are at stake here, but the performing rights. Assume that the song is one whose rightsholders are represented by IMRO. Somebody has made a digital copy of the song (for the purpose of installing it in the phone system). That's a breach of copyright, if done without a licence from the rightsholders. And someone is playing the song to the public. That's a breach of the performing rights, if performancy royalties are not being paid (and if they do not have permission from the holders of the performance rights).

Uno my Uno.

€1500 in the district court for the photo is a very small award. In debt collection matters many commercial clients would barely consider it economical to pursue that amount except where it forms part of a policy to always pursue debts.

And of course, getting the order is one thing, getting the money is an entirely separate matter.

My point being that €1500 for punitive damages is probably the lowest reasonable award that could be made. I assume that costs followed the order although I didn't see it in the article.

salamanca22

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

€1500 in the district court for the photo is a very small award. In debt collection matters many commercial clients would barely consider it economical to pursue that amount except where it forms part of a policy to always pursue debts.

And of course, getting the order is one thing, getting the money is an entirely separate matter.

My point being that €1500 for punitive damages is probably the lowest reasonable award that could be made. I assume that costs followed the order although I didn't see it in the article.

Punitive damages are meant to deter someone from certain behavior. 1500 is a lot to a non profit or low profit group. They won't do it again so the order would have been successful. And if they do it again then next time it will be a larger reward.

Uno my Uno.

salamanca22 wrote: »

Punitive damages are meant to deter someone from certain behavior. 1500 is a lot to a non profit or low profit group. They won't do it again so the order would have been successful. And if they do it again then next time it will be a larger reward.

I don't think it is a lot really, even for an NGO. Certainly if you took that action hoping looking to secure punitive damages you'd be hoping for much more. I would think €4000 or €5000 would be more in line with expectations and would be a lot more of a deterrent.

I don't disagree with the amount awarded, I think it was correct, I just don't think it is as big a deal as some others seem to.

Peregrinus

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There was no commercial damage.

Yes, there was. The rightsholder - the photographer - didn't get the licence fee to which he is entitled. And he makes his living out of licencing the use of his property.

Using somebody's else's property without paying for it inflicts commercial damage on that person. And this is true whether the property is tangible, like a house, or intangible, like the intellectual property in a creative work.

Johnboy1951

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, there was. The rightsholder - the photographer - didn't get the licence fee to which he is entitled. And he makes his living out of licencing the use of his property.

Using somebody's else's property without paying for it inflicts commercial damage on that person. And this is true whether the property is tangible, like a house, or intangible, like the intellectual property in a creative work.

Besides the licence fee, what damages were inflicted?

... damage was mitigated by the fact no-one in Ireland had seen the offending post.

Judge:

I do believe that there has been an infringement, albeit an innocent infringement of rights. I’m satisfied that the claimant has rights to the photograph… and those rights are registered in Ireland,

So what was the 'award' for?

No one in the jurisdiction saw the pic.
The infringement was innocent.
The 'take-down' notice was complied with.

There is no indication a licence fee was requested and refused.

I hope they successfully appeal the award.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here we go again with this "stealing" BS.
It was infringement of copyright and not theft.

You might wish to separate the two .... innocent infringement and compliance with a take down notice .... but that does not wash in this case.

'Punitive damages' .... punishment for what? an innocent act which was corrected when brought to their attention?
The amount based on what? No one viewing the infringing content?

Paulw

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

an innocent act which was corrected when brought to their attention?

So, it's alright to do it, if it's not brought to attention?? :eek:

Sorry, copyright breach is copyright breach. It is very simple - get permission or don't use it. Not a complex issue at all. Not sure how you can't get your head around that.

Johnboy1951

Paulw wrote: »

So, it's alright to do it, if it's not brought to attention?? :eek:

Sorry, copyright breach is copyright breach. It is very simple - get permission or don't use it. Not a complex issue at all. Not sure how you can't get your head around that.

Not sure why you would imagine I can't

Peregrinus

salamanca22 wrote: »

It wasn't a fine. In this case it was punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded for the reason to deter this exact behavior.

It was damages, but there was nothing in the newspaper report to suggest that it was punitive damages.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The amount based on what? No one viewing the infringing content?

Nothing in the newspaper report discusses the basis on which the award of 1500 was fixed. My guess would be that it was the kind of licence fee that would typically be negotiated for the use of such an image in advertising or promotional material. It's the kind of fee that they would have paid, had they negotated a fee.

Johnboy1951

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was damages, but there was nothing in the newspaper report to suggest that it was punitive damages.


Nothing in the newspaper report discusses the basis on which the award of 1500 was fixed. My guess would be that it was the kind of licence fee that would typically be negotiated for the use of such an image in advertising or promotional material. It's the kind of fee that they would have paid, had they negotated a fee.

Yes it is unfortunately a guess (which I tend to agree with) due to a lack of information.
I have no idea how the amount is arrived at or if it correlates to the actual licence fee.

Neither, unfortunately, is there any indication that the copyright owner asked for a licence fee and was refused.

From the info published, it is not beyond belief that the copyright owner never asked for a fee but just issued a take-down notice.
If an attempt at negotiating a fee occurred I would have expected that to be reported.

If that was the case then this was a waste of the courts time.

Not that it makes any difference, but the Theatre Site site apparently linked to the pic on the Italian infringing site, rather than hosting the pic themselves.

The hyper-linked photos on Tron Theatre Ltd’s social media channel directed to an Italian website, the court heard.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/media-group-rages-against-theatres-use-of-dylan-thomas-photographs-363663.html

Uno my Uno.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yes it is unfortunately a guess (which I tend to agree with) due to a lack of information.
I have no idea how the amount is arrived at or if it correlates to the actual licence fee.

Neither, unfortunately, is there any indication that the copyright owner asked for a licence fee and was refused.

From the info published, it is not beyond belief that the copyright owner never asked for a fee but just issued a take-down notice.
If an attempt at negotiating a fee occurred I would have expected that to be reported.

If that was the case then this was a waste of the courts time.

Not that it makes any difference, but the Theatre Site site apparently linked to the pic on the Italian infringing site, rather than hosting the pic themselves.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/media-group-rages-against-theatres-use-of-dylan-thomas-photographs-363663.html

If the court felt its' time was being wasted it would have declined to make any order.

challengemaster

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Neither, unfortunately, is there any indication that the copyright owner asked for a licence fee and was refused.

Why would they have asked for a licence fee when they didn't want the image being used in the first place? Asking for a licence fee would imply they were OK with the use and just wanted compensation for it.

Johnboy1951

challengemaster wrote: »

Why would they have asked for a licence fee when they didn't want the image being used in the first place? Asking for a licence fee would imply they were OK with the use and just wanted compensation for it.

I see. Assuming this is correct .....

What we have is someone who made a genuine error (Judge's opinion) of linking to a picture on another site which was itself infringing copyright.

On request to take it down, it was done.

No one in the jurisdiction viewed it.
The page had seven followers only.

.... but the copyright owner wanted his 'pound of flesh' ...... and got it through the Irish court system.

Legally entitled? certainly