2
« on: February 02, 2019, 05:24:20 AM »
We can debate the ethical considerations until we're all exhausted, but the point remains that the law is the law until someone changes it... and the law provides copyright protection to your images and stiff/severe penalties to anyone who impermissibly uses those images.
It's the same argument when someone gets arrested for marijuana possession in a state where such is not legal. You can argue the morality/ethics of whether marijuana should be allowed, but you're still going to jail for violating the existing laws.
This conversation veered off sharply, and it's largely my fault for being the first one to identify the copyright violation and suggest that a lawsuit might be appropriate. But we're all losing sight of 'why' I suggested that a lawsuit might be appropriate - it wasn't because of the technical violation, it was the snotty attitude of the vendor that he was somehow doing the owner a favor by swapping out the pictures. Whether it makes financial, moral, or ethical sense, that is the type of attitude that leads to lawsuits in the future. Believe it or not, as a litigation attorney, I generally encourage my clients not to file lawsuits and attempt friendly resolutions where possible. The problem was resolved here when the vendor took the photo down, but he then thought it proper to mouth off to the owner. If the owner took offense to this, was litigious by nature, wanted to teach a lesson, or held any of 100 other personality traits, there easily could be a lawsuit to which the vendor would have no defense (putting the money back in the bank vault does not excuse you from the original bank robbery). The vendor would be facing $10,000+ of liability (in addition to his own attorneys' fees), and it would all be because of his attitude. Trust me when I say that I see this all the time - lawsuits that could be avoided before someone feels compelled to open their mouth for the sole purpose of pissing the other side off.