Judge sides with photographer in legal suit

The judge awarded the photographer a settlement.

https://fstoppers.com …ainst-photographer-458411

I wonder what the 85 cents was for?

Relevant links:
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18611014
Some watermarks do not give you the same protection as a proper ©, but yours might & removing it can be worth a lot of $s.
Look at Carolyn E Wright's blog.

A "proper" © is: https://www.copyright.​gov/title17/92chap4.ht​ml

PhotosGuy wrote in post #19016089
I wonder what the 85 cents was for?

Inflation? Lol

Interesting. In my life away from photography, I have come across an alarming amount of people through Corporate America (and I can only imagine elsewhere as well) who are working on a presentation, looking for creative ideas, zany memes, a photo or sequence for their video or stream, and they simply Google it, copy/paste it, and life goes on. With the mind-numbing amount of media (photos, vids) being poured onto the Interwebs on the daily, most if not all people I know feel like there is no such thing as hard work to produce a well-edited/high-quality image. That's not good at all.

So in the end, images are so abundant that nobody gives a second thought to "borrowing" whatever they want, and adjust it for their own use (removing watermarks, logos, etc).

This is as good time as any to push back, and show how professional photos, or any of the photos that we publish, have more forethought than a selfie, and more involvement, commitment, and sweating than a Kardashian sex-tape (do forgive the mental imagery).

Score one for the photographers. That puts us at what, 9999999 to 3? That's something.

Cheers