Copyright Claims Board Finds for Photographer on Infringement But Curbs Damages in First Final Decision

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) has made its first final decision since it was established by law in December 2020, banning lawyers from displaying one of their photographs on the firm’s website. It ruled in favor of a photographer who claimed to have infringed copyright.

David Oppenheimer’s case against Douglas Platton was referred to CCB in April 2022 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Oppenheimer wrote on Plutton’s website in 2018, “Where We Work. Oppenheimer admitted to copying and displaying the photos without permission, but his adult daughter actually found the photos and posted them on his site. He also claimed fair use and dirty hands when defending his use of the work.

fatal flaw

First, Prutton said Oppenheimer had never actually licensed a photograph before, so the fourth fair use factor, the effect of market use of the work, worked in his favor. rice field. Prutton argued that Oppenheimer failed to show that Prutton’s use had any effect on the market for the work, but CCB argued that “fair use is an affirmative defense” and that fair use is liable. He explained that the onus was on Prutton to prove that he was exempt from But even if this claim prevailed, the Board said Pluton’s failure to address any of his three other fair use elements was “fatal” to his defense. . Additionally, CCB could find no evidence from the record to show that his other three factors favored him. Because his website was commercial in nature, its use was by no means transformative, Oppenheimer’s photography was creative in nature, and Plutton copied. Whole photo.

Platton also claimed that Oppenheimer had “dirty hands” because he was a frequent copyright lawsuit and was unreasonable in settlement negotiations. “To hold an infringement lawsuit filed by a copyright owner in filthy hands simply because of the amount of other lawsuits by the same owner is a copyright claim suing for actual infringement, as has clearly happened here.” It would take away the rights of the rights holders.” wrote the CCB.

Impracticable Claims for Damages

However, on the issue of damages, CCB denied Oppenheimer’s request for $30,000 in statutory damages, stating that it “is not a viable claim for a single infringed work.” Instead, two of his three board members decided his $1,000 was an appropriate compensation, and one member thought the minimum amount, he thought $750, was appropriate. . “Some of the factors that courts commonly see are either absent here, or are deliberately related outside the Commission’s ability to address, but the overall ‘circumstances of infringement’ range from a minimum to justify a modest increase in the number of directors,” said a majority of the board.

Factors supporting this modest increase included “Prutton’s use was commercial in nature and lasted for at least a year”, “the work is aerial and definitely adds value”, and Artwork is not large, “clearly larger than thumbnail size”. The committee also dismissed Prutton’s “innocent infringer” claim, stating that “Prutton must bear his burden of proof as to why an attorney (or his adult daughter) took pictures that were not his.” We offer no further evidence or arguments to satisfy the Posting on his commercial website without permission would “have no reason to believe” that such conduct constitutes copyright infringement. ”

Devlin Hartline of the Hudson Institute focused on the case On Twitter, the decision “shows that the CCB will decide the matter and fairly award damages,” and “argued that it is to the humble benefit of ‘copyright trolls,'” CCB said. Detractors suggest that they were wrong.

Hartline adds: @Copyright Office Creating and running a CCB is an understatement. Lawsuits like this one aren’t expensive, but they’re very important for creators who can’t afford to sue in federal court. ”

Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 111582128
Author: Alex