A Washington, D.C., law firm has to pay $8k for the unauthorized use of generic stock photos. The same vanilla photos we see at all levels of media. In fact, I’ve been a critic of the overuse of those photos, & have written about that on this blog here (don’t forget to check out my nifty little Family Guy clip on the same topic). The firm used these vanilla photos on its own website. The details are below. This is the 1st I’ve ever heard of this type of lawsuit. Personally, I find these types of photos useful in very limited circumstances, like when you have a lot of text on a web page & need something to spruce it up or add some color. It’s still better to use a photo that at least has some sort of broader meaning than just some generic image that’s stuck there because you needed something/anything.
By Zoe Tillman, Legal Times, @zoetillman
Lawyer Accused of Stealing Stock Images to Pay $8,000
March 17, 2015 3:10 PM EDT
Masterfile Corp. accuses a D.C. firm of using stock images—seen here, as depicted in the complaint—without permission.
Empty white space features prominently on the homepage of Jerry Joseph’s law firm website. That space used to hold photographs of men and women in suits sitting around talking—stock images that got Joseph sued for copyright infringement.
Earlier this month, Joseph, a patent attorney in Washington who runs his own firm, proposed paying $8,000 to resolve claims that he used two licensed images without permission. On Monday, the image licensing company, Masterfile Corp., accepted Joseph’s offer. A judgment will be entered against Joseph in federal district court in Washington.
Joseph and his lawyer, Oscar Michelen of Cuomo LLC in Mineola, New York, did not immediately return requests for comment. A lawyer for Masterfile, Ronni Jillions of Browdy and Neimark in Washington, declined to comment.
As the NLJ previously reported, Masterfile filed suit against Joseph in September. The complaint accused him of using two of the company’s photos—depicting professionally dressed men and women sitting and talking—without permission.
According to the complaint, Joseph removed the photos shortly after Masterfile alerted him in February 2013 that he wasn’t licensed or otherwise authorized to use them. Masterfile said Joseph didn’t respond to the company’s efforts to reach a settlement before the lawsuit was filed.
The $8,000 judgment will cover all damages, costs and attorney fees for Masterfile. But the amount is much less than what Masterfile wanted. The company’s complaint sought the maximum damages of $150,000 for each instance of willful copyright infringement, “or such other amount as may be proper” under federal law, among other damages.
A trial date hadn’t been scheduled. Joseph and Masterfile were set to finish exchanging documents and other information by the end of July, according to a scheduling order. Joseph made the offer on March 3, according to court documents.
Contact Zoe Tillman at ztillman@alm.com. On Twitter: @zoetillman
Using photos like that on your professional website is pretty boneheaded. That said, Masterfile is a horrible bully and is making a mockery of the intent of copyright law by preying on people who, unlike this attorney, may have infringed completely by accident and who are in no position to spend the 1000s of dollars it would take to clear their name. In short, Masterfile is abusing the justice system to make a buck – shamelessly.