We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
A federal jury in Indianapolis found that retired attorney
Richard Bell does not own the copyright to a photograph of the
Indianapolis skyline — an image at the heart of dozens of
infringement lawsuits Bell has filed over the years.
Bell has alleged he took the skyline photograph in March 2000,
and registered it with the Copyright Office in 2011 shortly after
his former law firm stopped using the photo on its website.
We have previously written about Bell, who has
filed more than 100 lawsuits alleging copyright infringement of his
skyline photo. The defendant in this matter, Carmen Commercial Real
Estate Services, used the photograph in a 2014 blog post. In 2016,
Bell contacted the company about the alleged infringement, but the
company refused to settle when he demanded $5,000.
At trial, the company argued two points: Bell did not take the
photograph in March 2000, and that he did not own the copyright
because of the "work for hire" doctrine.
The company first focused – pun intended – on
Bell's credibility. Bell's complaint alleges he took the
photograph in March 2000. However, the defense noted the skyline
photo shows green grass and a working fountain. The defense argued
that grass in Indianapolis is rarely green in March, and that
records show the city did not turn the fountain on until April
2000. The company also pointed to Bell's testimony that on the
day he allegedly took the photograph, he took another skyline photo
from the same location later that night. In the nighttime
photograph, trees visible under streetlights have no leaves,
whereas the same trees in the daytime photograph appear thick with
foliage.
The company then alleged Bell did not own the copyright because
of the "work for hire" doctrine. Under the Copyright Act,
generally the person who takes the photograph owns the copyright in
the resulting image. The "work for hire" doctrine is an
exception; it deems the employer to be the owner of photos taken by
employees as part of their regular duties. Here, the company argued
Bell's employer at the time, a law firm, owned the copyright,
apparently because Bell took the photograph for use on the
firm's website.
In its verdict, the jury determined that Bell had not proved
that he "authored the Indianapolis Skyline Photo, that he owns
a copyright in it, and that he registered it with the Copyright
Office." As the prevailing party, the company is seeking more
than $160,000 in attorney's fees under the Copyright Act's
fee-shifting provision. Bell has filed a motion for a new
trial.
This case demonstrates that while a certificate of registration
is presumptive evidence of copyright ownership, the facts
underlying the photograph deserve more than a cursory review
– sometimes they will cause bells to go off.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Freshub, an emerging Smart Kitchen Commerce technology company that supports IoT based in-home grocery shopping, recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon (Amazon.com, Amazon
On November 8, 2019, a California District Court dismissed both California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA") and federal Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA") ...
Phelan offers tips for patent lawyers based on noteworthy clarifications in the Patent and Trademark Office's recent update on the application and scope of its 2019 subject matter eligibility guidance.
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Copyright Law Strikes A New Chord In The Music Industry (Video)
