Blatent Copyright infringement!

Great result definitely, well done for sticking to what you knew was right Phil

Just to clarify the difference between UK and US law -
Claims for penal damages are not accepted by UK courts under the common law. Liquidated damages for the breach of contract are fine (and in this case the amount of damages was clear as £700 unless the OP had suffered other losses as a direct result of the breach) but courts will not award other damages to punish the respondent.

The only additional amount a claimant could receive would be an award of costs. In this case where the respondent had offered to pay the full liquidated damages before any hearing then it would be extremely unlikely that a judge would consider the additional costs of the action as reasonable.

Tempting as it may be to launch a claim in a fit of pique it's always advisable to try and reach an agreement with the other party before going to court. There is precedence for all costs to be awarded against one side (regardless of how the claim is decided) where the judge has felt that they haven't made an effort to settle the dispute before trial.


Steve

Beachcomber Joe wrote in post #14926629
While this is definitely a legal matter one could argue that it is merely a case of an unpaid debt. A contract was entered into, a service was provided, the recipient failed to pay in a timely manner. Since a value has already been set for the service, using the legal system to enforce payment is going to be the quickest path to payment.

You could argue contract was breached when they refused the images.

IMO if the courts look at it not as an unpaid debt on a contract, but as a copyright violation, you may be able to count use of each image as a separate breach of copyright. When copyright is breached and images are registered you don't simply charge "130 pounds" per image. That's how much photographs sell for. You sue for damages...

It's like downloading movies. You don't pay the 20$ cost for downloading a movie when you're caught. Even if the movie costs 20$, you pay 10k or more in fines, to make sure you don't do it again. Up to 200 grand in US, I think. If you could copy a movie and pay the cost when caught, it would not be a punishment.

So you could (or actually should) be looking at (and entitled to) much more money than 130 per shot used

perfect_pixel wrote in post #15989275
Just to clarify the difference between UK and US law -
Claims for penal damages are not accepted by UK courts under the common law.

I did not know that.

How is value determined in cases of copyright infingement?

UK: Actual loss. ie only what you would have billed. That becomes difficult if the images stolen aren't typically licensed.

So the images were so bad, they didn't want to pay for them. And they didn't.
Then they decide to steal the images and use them because they were OK.
Then they get caught stealing the images and all they have to pay is what they
were suppose to pay in the first place?

It would sure seem like once they didn't pay for the images, the agreement was null and void, and when they got caught stealing them, the price would be a lot higher.

I get taking the money and putting this behind you, I just don't see how there wasn't a much bigger win to be had by going to court.

Yaryman wrote in post #15997526
So the images were so bad, they didn't want to pay for them. And they didn't.
Then they decide to steal the images and use them because they were OK.
Then they get caught stealing the images and all they have to pay is what they
were suppose to pay in the first place?

It would sure seem like once they didn't pay for the images, the agreement was null and void, and when they got caught stealing them, the price would be a lot higher.

I get taking the money and putting this behind you, I just don't see how there wasn't a much bigger win to be had by going to court.

No punitive damages in UK system. In US/Canada you'd get a car or a house.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15997535
No punitive damages in UK system. In US/Canada you'd get a car or a house.

This isn'y acyually true, though it is believed by many people and photographers are often (wrongly) advised to use the small claims process for unpaid usage. Wrong because if the transgressor hasn't ever entered into a contract then they have no responsibility to pay an invoice. They are however guilty (obviously) of copyright infringement and liable to pay damages.
here are the details of how the UK IPO has simplified the process.

Small claims in the UK is highly limited. You can only claim very small amounts for costs, and the claim limit is very low. The alternative is full court, huge costs, and a chance you'll lose if they have a better lawyer than you.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15997535
No punitive damages in UK system. In US/Canada you'd get a car or a house.

It wouldn't need to be punitive damages. Once they said the pictures were no good, and they weren't going to pay, there was no deal.

Once they used the pictures without permission, it's time for a new deal.

My price is much higher once you have lied to me and stolen from me.

Yaryman wrote in post #15999276
My price is much higher once you have lied to me and stolen from me.

You may wish that was the case but that is not necessarily what a court will agree with when there was a contract setting the price of the images.
Also a lot of people here seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that the contract "went away" when the company returned the images saying that they were not good enough. This is not true.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15996678
I did not know that.

How is value determined in cases of copyright infingement?

The very unhelpful answer is I don't know I don't work in IP at all and there may be specific legislation or case law which sets out a framework for determining the value.

If there isn't and there was no contract governing the use of the images (and hence any costs associated with their use) then I would guess that the court would fall back on what value could be considered reasonable - for example by reference to selling prices of past work by the photographer or how much a picture in a similar field with the same usage can be demonstrated to have been sold for.

Steve

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15997535
No punitive damages in UK system. In US/Canada you'd get a car or a house.

Just to be a pedant - punitive damages do exist in English law but for breach of tort and not breach of contract.

They are termed exemplary damages and are reserved (in general) to act as a deterrent to future transgressions. I believe (although am prepared to be told that I'm wrong!) that they are generally awarded as an alternative to bringing a criminal prosection against the transgressor - for example if a water company had failed in it's duty of care to customers by supplying sub standard drinking water they could face exemplary damages rather than the company's officers being prosecuted.

Steve

Yaryman wrote in post #15999276
My price is much higher once you have lied to me and stolen from me.

aphphoto wrote in post #15999672
You may wish that was the case but that is not necessarily what a court will agree with when there was a contract setting the price of the images.
Also a lot of people here seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that the contract "went away" when the company returned the images saying that they were not good enough. This is not true.

So the company STEALS the images, ( that can be the only description of what happened ) and a judge is going to REWARD the thief by telling them they just have to pay the original price?

Wouldn't that be a legal precedent.

You steal something from a store that you already want. If you get caught, you just pay the regular price.
If you don't get caught, you get the item for free.

Yaryman wrote in post #16000355
So the company STEALS the images, ( that can be the only description of what happened ) and a judge is going to REWARD the thief by telling them they just have to pay the original price?

The way the OP chose to proceed he only has one basis for his case which is breach of contract not copyright infringement or theft. The best he could have hoped for was to have the contract enforced and the company pay the original invoice plus, perhaps, reasonable costs. No damages.

Yaryman wrote in post #16000355
So the company STEALS the images, ( that can be the only description of what happened ) and a judge is going to REWARD the thief by telling them they just have to pay the original price?

Apparently so. I share your sense of injustice about the outcome. There ought also to be a provision for making them feel guilty, but I don't know how this could be accomplished. When I've been dealt with unfairly, I've wanted to give the transgressors a good scolding that would get them to understand what scum they are.

Maybe the OP can publicize his dealings with the company. In the U.S., we have Yelp.