|
Copyright laws provide for statutory penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement. No, that comma is not in the wrong place. It's not $150; and it's not $1,500: It's one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. In case you think that is an arbitrary number, bear in mind that it has recently been raised from $100,000 per infringement in order to give the provision even more teeth than it already had.
So, let's say you go to a photo agency website, download one of the low resolution stock photos they provide for "trying out" purposes, and then use it on your website without first purchasing a license to do so for, say, $49.
In order to save $49, you have just opened yourself up to a potential liability of $150,000. And when the agency finds you (and they will), the legal "cause of action" that lands on your desk (it looks a lot like a subpoena) will not be seeking the $29 you should have paid: It will be seeking $150,000 for infringement of the lawful copyright on the stock photo.
 |
Governmental legislators have a long history of understanding the importance of encouraging people to be creative by giving them the right to control -- and benefit from -- the products of that creativity. The advent of the Internet and the easy digital transportation of images that accompanies it has prompted lawmakers to work hard on the copyright laws to afford creators the protection they need. One of the results of this is the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" that attempts to apply these fundamental protection issues to the "New Age".
In other words, lawmakers have given creators the tools they need, in the form of this Act, to prevent thievery by making it extremely difficult for someone with larceny in their heart to sleep well. Just one example of this, as we'll see in a later section, is that the Act makes it a criminal offense to attempt to digitally remove such things as watermarks on stock photos which are placed there to protect copyright. Yes, removing watermarks can be easily done, but doing so is as "against the law" as would be breaking into someone's house to steal their jewelry. If the potential for massive financial loss doesn't deter you, how does jail sound?
Thus, even beyond the specific provisions of the Act, you should take note of the underlying spirit of the Act and the "mind set" of the lawmakers that it bespeaks: They consider intellectual property theft a very serious offense and they will do what's necessary to give creators the ability to protect their copyrights.
If copyright infringement resulted in nothing but a slap on the wrist, there are unfortunately those who would say to themselves, "If I get caught, I'll just pay the fine and consider it a cost of doing business." Lawmakers in the US have figured that $150,000.00 is a figure large enough to discourage that attitude in most sane people.
|
