The Reality Of Infringement Claims

Good for you! It's time for these photo leeches to get what's coming to them.

I fully concur.
I've resolved infringements out of court but only because I made it known that the images were registered. In all three instances their lawyers had them pursue immediate resolutions. Without the registration I doubt the response would have been the same.

All in all, you probably did as well or better than you would have if you had gotten an attorney involved. A letter from an attorney would have gotten this yahoo's attention and you probably would have settled for a $1000-2000 at best, from which you would have paid your attorney's fees.

If your image was registered, there is no doubt you would have won in Federal Court and this person suggestion that you attempt procreation with yourself would not have been looked upon kindly by the court--and even jerks have assets and such---he would have settled before court, if not as soon as he heard from your attorney.

I was more afraid here that you might have laid down on this, but I am glad you pursued it. Until these people find out that there are consequences from these actions they will continue to do it with more frequency and more boldly. Great Job!

The infringer could have refused to pay, which is still ok in my book as that would have resulted in a collection judgment on their credit report.

DMCA while offering recourse does nothing to give pause to would be offenders.
Hitting such offenders in the wallet is a bigger dog on the porch.

While my scenario may not speak to other situations among photographers; it is certainly far more viable and practical than federal court.

Well done Kevin. Thanks for sharing, these are important points and should bring it home to people why it indeed is important to register your copyright. I take it that the infringer actually paid up?

Yes, they paid; more accurately the young man's parents paid in this case.

As a aside, the younng man was 22 yrs old; his parents appeared with him at small claims.
Following the magistrates finding in my favor, the kids parents approached me and said they felt this was an extreme measure. My response was "What; coming to small claims or the $5K?" They said "both".

My response to that was "I earn my living with photography. Would you like me to come to your workplace and take money from you or cause a condition that may cause you to lose income? Would you like it if I came into your home and stole your property? Your son stole my property and would not return it at my request"

I followed with "You want extreme? Here is a copy of U.S law concerning copyright infringement. You are quite fortunate I did not take this to federal court"

The magistrates admonishment to the young man AND his parents was none too kind.

My entire reason for posting my story was for others who may find themselves in a similar situation where filing is federal court is not a viable, practical or financial solution. Human nature does not respond well to kind requests that eventually escalate to threats. They respond very well when there is a real price to pay.

Very true Kevin. Sad, but true.

" ...You are quite fortunate I did not take this to federal court."

Actually they were fortunate but they and the judge didn't know it.

See Copyright Act section 301 and accompanying House Historical and Revision Note No. 94-1476. The intent is to pre-empt and abolish any rights iinvolving state infringement type claims that come within the scope of the federal copyright law and are "stated in the clearest and most unequivocal language possible, so as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation" of its intent in this area.

The "reality" is that this case, and occasional others, slipped by. Congratulations.

This reminds me of ...

http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/08/photographer-awarded-1000-for.html

... and Christopher B happened to post here too ...

http://photo.net/business-photography-forum/00UD3R