Small claims court for copyright cases?

[Paul Ron]

A bill was recently passed allowing you to sue for copyright infringement in small claims court....

https://petapixel.com/2020/12/28/cop...-act-into-law/

any thoughts?

the only catch i see is if the served refuses to answer your summons within 60 days, you will have to go to federal court...

seems like a useless bill.

[HMG]

...

the only catch i see is if the served refuses to answer your summons within 60 days, you will have to go to federal court...

seems like a useless bill.

That's not how I read it. From my quick layman's read of the bill, the respondent (the person accused of infringement) has 60 days to opt out. If they do not opt out, they are bound by the decision of that board. If they do opt out, then the one bringing the suit is shit-out-of-luck in terms of using this copyright board. So your conclusion ("seems like a useless bill") might be right unless the respondent fears being sued in a federal court.

[jnantz]

usually small claims courts have a ceiling of what you can sue for. sometimes its 1500, sometimes its 2000, and in some states you need to have a lawyer involved. ... AND people with a judgement against them often times don't pay, so one would have to get a lawyer involved to put a lien on property to assure eventual payment. whether it is in local small claims court or federal court you need to have the registration which proves authorship.. people tend to put the © symbol next to things, and then post images on the internet or on FB ( which claims ownership of everything posted to the platform ) ... without registering the © is useless. ( not even gonna say anything about orphaned works and how unscrupulous ad agencies and website builders scour the internet for images on platforms like FB, IG, Flickr, personal websites &c and suggest they looked for the owner and made contact with them but "no reply must be MIA" and use the work claiming it was abandoned like squatters rights. ... oops I did say something, sorry )

[Jim Noel]

In other words, copyrights are useless, as they have been for years, unless the offender wants them to be.

[Alan Klein]

This is not your local small claims court.

Quote from the linked article:

"Rather than file a federal lawsuit, photographers will be able to bring their infringement claims before a Copyright Claims Board within the US Copyright Office — a three-member panel of experts in copyright law. This panel would be able to award photographers up to $15,000 per work and $30,000 per claim, assuming the works are registered with the office.

For unregistered photos, photographers would only be eligible for $7,500 and $15,000, respectively.

In addition to monetary penalties, the board could also simply send the infringer a notice to cease the infringement."

[Alan Klein]

This is actually a good thing for photographers who can't afford to hire an attorney under the usual existing procedure. Filing this suit shows seriousness and the defendant would have to think twice about telling the plaintiff to go stick it. He would be more willing to settle.

[Paul Ron]

as for the 60 day opt out... yes that's what i meant but worded wrong.


no lawyers is a good point. i thinkmit may also deter some theft since its easier to sue this way. although it may open a can of worms if frivolous suits start flooding the courts setting crazy presedents for copyrights.

winning is one thing, collecting is another. generally when you win n the defendant doesnt pay, the win has a bench lien of 20 years or something like that and is renewable. but its up to you to get a collector involved to get your money. the coloectors can garnish salery n freeze bank accounts. but who bothers to follow up? it takes time n money.

instacrap n those types of sites generally have terms that indemnify them from suits n make anything posted on the site their property they can use in their overseas s ites you may not be aware of... or have time limits stating abandoned property rites most posters never read. thats a good point to be aware of.

the best protection you have is to post only junk you dont care about getting stolen... unless you are hoping to be discovered via your stolen works.

[Tin Can]

Very good advice!

[Alan Klein]

$7500 to $30,000 are serious awards. Hiring a sheriff or whoever to seize the award money would be worth it. Of course, if they're overseas, not much you can do. In fact, this new court won't allow suits against foreign violators. Attorney fees are recoverable if there's bad faith. That could reduce frivolous lawsuits. I'm not sure this is covered.

The new law is certainly better for photographers than what occurred before. It adds an arrow to your quiver. Nothing's perfect.

I wish someone would steal one of my pictures. It would be good for my ego.

[domaz]

as for the 60 day opt out... yes that's what i meant but worded wrong.


no lawyers is a good point. i thinkmit may also deter some theft since its easier to sue this way. although it may open a can of worms if frivolous suits start flooding the courts setting crazy presedents for copyrights.

winning is one thing, collecting is another. generally when you win n the defendant doesnt pay, the win has a bench lien of 20 years or something like that and is renewable. but its up to you to get a collector involved to get your money. the coloectors can garnish salery n freeze bank accounts. but who bothers to follow up? it takes time n money.

I imagine you can sell your debt to a debt collection agency, maybe getting a fraction of the reward yourself but something. Bill collectors are still sending letters to someone at my address who hasn't lived here in 15 years at least, they don't give up as easily as you think.