I think the judge is totally wrong and clearly does not understand copyright law

My MIL watches those judge shows all day. I personally hate them but just now there was an interesting case and I believe the judge total ruled incorrectly. Here is the set up.
1. Photographer hired to do a fashion shoot for a website. Does the shoot and in the contract it states that her copyright is to remain intact and she is credited.
2. Fashion site posts pictures giving photog credit.
3.Fashion sites friend reposts the pictures removing copyright and credit
4. Photog sees her pictures being used on another site, not the original site and removes the photos from her site thus stoping the fashion site and her friend from using them.
5. Fashion site sues the photog.

So they argue back and forth with the photographer pleading that her copyright is being infringed on so she has the right to remove the photos until the issue is remedied and miss fashion site claims that she cannot control what others do and if they steal a photo from her site, it's not her problem.

Judge ruled against the photog claiming that her contract is with miss fashion site who abides by the terms of the contract and miss fashion site is not responsible for what others do. Photog had to pay.

I believe that the judge totally blew it. I would think that if you saw your photo being linked to and cropped removing watermark, you should have the right to remove the photo. So.. am I wrong? Thoughts... Let's discuss.

Really? Because you're being harmed by person A you can deprive person B of what they've paid for?

I don't get why the fashion site didn't have its own copy of the photos, but I suppose they had some hosting agreement with the photographer which would be part of the contract and part of the lawsuit.

If the website who was party to the contract lived up to the terms then the photographer then there's no course of action against them. The photographer does have a case against the friend who used the images without license and removed the watermark but cannot pull the images from the website in retaliation unless she can prove some sort of collusion to improperly use the images. If the case is as described the judge got it right.

Keep in mid that by pulling them from her site and scuttling the website that was party to the agreement the photographer can't unilaterally revoke the agreement because of so e third party violation. If I license an image to a local retailer and they print up a billboard or some other advertising I cannot just yank permission for that images use until the license expires because I am upset with them for some action after the agreement was signed.

I side with the judge and gonzongolf...Photograp​her cannot penalize the orinal contractee (fashion web site) by depriving it of the use of the photos, simply because of wrongdoing by a third party. Fashion website had a contract for USE of the photos, and they were deprived of the use. Photographer was breaking his contract with the fashion website, so he got penalized.

No 'copyright' violation by fashion website, but by the person usurping the photos. Copyrights protect your creative content from being used without your permission...but the third party did not obtain that permission.
Did fashion website collude with the third party, to break the terms of the original contract?! Only if they did was there any culpability of letting the third party use the photos, putting them in violation of contract. First party to violate contract appears to be the photographer, not the fashion web site.

Then there us the simple issue of 'justice'...So I should be able to punish you for the sins of your sister?!

(Not an attorney, above is merely an outsider's opinion.)

It seems straight forward to me. Anyone could have reposted the pictures. The fact that the person that reposted was a friend of the person who paid for the photos is irrelevant. Photographer may choose to not accept further business from the fashion company in the future. Or they could include a clause in the contract stating if photos were reposted, the photos would be removed from the buyers website, but who would sign that contract? I think the photographers action removing photos was worse than the reposter's.

The judge was 100% correct.

The client did nothing wrong. The fact that someone stole the images isn't the clients fault and the photographer can't punish them for it.

The photographer should have gone after the person who infringed their copyright.

I guess I stand corrected. I would have thought that a photog could suspend access if a copyright infringement is located especially after warning the site that it was happening.

gjl711 wrote in post #19380645
I guess I stand corrected. I would have thought that a photog could suspend access if a copyright infringement is located especially after warning the site that it was happening.

You can suspend the infringer's access. The problem here was that an innocent party (as far as we know) was injured and the original contract violated.

Without having heard the case, it's probably not 100% clear to anyone here what actually happened. For instance, you never mentioned anyone getting a warning of anything. There are probably more absent details. But the judge DID hear the whole case, and is trained to pay attention to the details, and probably had access to more information than most people heard on TV.

Sounds reasonable, but in this case there was apparently some pesky contract she'd signed saying she would keep them available to the magazine. She was paid for them, so they were no longer 100% hers to do what she pleased with. Did they read aloud the whole contract on the show?

gjl711 wrote in post #19380645
I guess I stand corrected. I would have thought that a photog could suspend access if a copyright infringement is located especially after warning the site that it was happening.

Notice this is not a copyright infringement case, this is a contract law case, with the publisher suing the photographer for breach of contract. If it had been a copyright infringement case, it would have been held in federal court.

The photographer still has a federal case against the party that actually infringed the copyright...if it's worthwhile pursuing it.

gjl711 wrote in post #19380645
I guess I stand corrected. I would have thought that a photog could suspend access if a copyright infringement is located especially after warning the site that it was happening.

Unless there was proof that the website(client) was somehow complicit in the infringement then the photographer can't suspend access. Suppose the website was in the middle of some sort of promotional campaign and the photographer pulls the images, gutting the promotion at significant expense to the client. While websites are just pixels on a screen try to think of the case a multi media campaign. If the client had produced billboards, posters, and handbills using the images the photographer can't yank back the rights after the client has so much invested. The media is different, but the principle remains.