Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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