[Leica] a photographer sued

[bcaldwell51 at earthlink.net (Bryan Caldwell)]

It's also likely that, in the situation we've been discussing, the 
plaintiffs want an injunction to simply stop what they consider the invasive 
photography. But, in the U.S. an injunction can be expensive to obtain 
because the general rule is that both parties, the eventual winner and the 
eventual loser, bear the cost of their own representation.

The California statute to which I referred provides a for civil fine, treble 
damages, disgorgement of any funds received from the use of the images, and, 
if the defendant was acting for commercial purposes, possible punitive 
damages. An award of punitive damages, which takes into account the 
financial resources of the defendant, is an amount designed to punish and, 
most importantly, make them stop the action complained of. Punitive damages 
are often criticized because, with a wealthy defendant, they can be very 
large.

But, if someone is actually constantly watching you and your family's 
at-home life through telephoto lenses, your first concern is most likely 
making them stop - not seeking some financial advantage.

In fact, invasion of privacy cases are often much more about injunctions 
that about damage awards. They are a close relative of "misappropriation" 
cases - where someone's (usually a celebrity's) image is used for a 
commercial purpose (advertising) without their permission. In those cases, 
actual damages can be quite large.

U.S. Constitutional rights are constantly coming into conflict with one 
another. Although never specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the 
U.S. Supreme Court, for reasons I won't go into here, has long recognized a 
right to privacy - or the right to be let alone. But that can easily 
conflict with the First Amendment right to take a photograph. One does not 
automatically trump the other. The courts and legislatures have to look at 
what factors must be individually weighed to make a decision as to which 
right prevails.

Again, I'm afraid what seem alike it should have an easy answer doesn't.

Bryan

 



On May 27, 2013, at 9:44 PM, "Bill Pearce" <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote:

> Generally in the US, legal action is made in anticipation of money. 
> Obviously, no one knows how little money is to be made in fine art 
> photography.
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: George Lottermoser
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] a photographer sued
> 
> 
> On May 27, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> 
>> I'm still not clear on what line is being crossed here. Is it the taking 
>> of
>> the photographs or the possibility of making money?
> 
> not sure what "alleged" line is "allegedly" being crossed
> to be determined
> to be continued
> 
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george at imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com
> http://www.imagist.com/blog
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information