Copyright infringement lawsuits make Indy skyline photo worth a lot more than 1,000 words

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From IndyStar:

Rich Bell doesn’t look like a bully.

“I don’t think so,” the retired lawyer said. “But obviously some people think I am.”

He said he won’t sue “little old ladies.” One time a kid’s parents called and asked for lenience, which Bell granted.

Others who published Bell’s 18-year-old photograph of the Indianapolis skyline without permission get a letter asking for $5,000 to $10,000, depending on how long the photo has been used and how blatant the infringement. He has special contempt for people who have put their own copyright mark on his photo.

There have been about 200 infringement cases, including two judgments of $150,000 apiece in Bell’s favor. Usually, companies or their liability insurance settle the claim. Those who don’t settle or don’t respond will become part of his steady stream of copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court in Indianapolis.

. . . .

Real estate companies have been the worst culprits, Bell said. He also has pending cases against Merchants Bank and the head of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. Both dispute the allegations in court documents.

All over a photo Bell took on March 8, 2000, from West St. Clair Street. He returned that night for another photo from the site, which has also been used without permission.

“I think there’s a number of people who don’t even know that that area exists,” Bell said. “It’s down on the canal, and it’s a very picturesque area. At that time, most of the buildings didn’t even have any lettering on them.”

. . . .

In the ensuing years, he sold rights to the photograph a few times, Bell recalled in an interview at his McCordsville home, where numerous photos of his adorn the walls. He is a self-taught photographer.

It wasn’t until 2011 that he became interested in infringement. Bell’s wife, Diane, discovered the photo in a magazine.

“Isn’t that your photograph?” she said.

“It sure does look like it,” Bell replied.

That started him on an effort to learn more about copyright law and, eventually, start quarterly sessions each year on Google Images to discover people using his image without permission.

“The law is designed to make sure people don’t steal other people’s works,” Bell said. “In particular, to put your copyright notice on there and try to tell people that it’s yours. That, to me, is wrong.”

Bell doesn’t win them all and has been called a “copyright troll.”

He lost a $22,289 judgment to reimburse a defendant for legal fees after suing him but being unable to find his screen grab of the photo. Bell said his computer was corrupted and he lost the evidence.

“Mr. Bell has filed a multiplicity of suits in this Court, each involving the same or similar infringement allegations,” federal judge Tanya Walton Pratt wrote. “In many of these copyright infringement suits, Mr. Bell has improperly joined several defendants, thereby saving him extensive filing fees. In this case alone, Mr. Bell sued forty-seven defendants and then quickly offered settlements to defendants who were unwilling to pay for a legal defense.”

. . . .

Mitch Stoltz, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that while copyright infringement does exist and is against the law, he added that the legal penalties are out of proportion to a photo’s value or the harm suffered by the copyright holder.

Link to the rest at IndyStar

You can see the photo in question in the OP. The Indianapolis Star is careful to

PG’s sentiments are with the photographer in this case. The original photo will never threaten Ansel Adams’ work as iconic Americana, but it is a competently-made photo from what the OP suggests is a seldom-used angle. The commercial attractiveness of the photo seems to be well-established by the large number of people and organizations that have used it without permission.

If you Google Indianapolis skyline, you will find many alternate photos that are available (including a photo of a tattoo of the Indianapolis skyline created on the lower back of a serious Indy fan). Yet people continue to use Mr. Bell’s skyline photo (for which he will sell lifetime usage rights for $200).

The OP doesn’t indicate the photographer has ever attempted to lure others into improperly using his photo by misrepresenting it as being in the public domain or otherwise unprotected. PG suggests it is unfair to demean Mr. Bell based upon the actions of third parties who have either removed copyright notices or claimed that they own the copyright to Mr. Bell’s photo.

PG suggests the OP’s ultimate lesson is that one should check on the provenance of various creative works one intends to use for private purposes, including republishing them online or using them for book covers.

Google Image Search is another way (although not bullet-proof) of checking on an image of uncertain origin. Google searches based upon the physical appearance of an image. Click on the camera icon that appears next to the search box when you’re in Image Search. You can either use the URL of the image or upload a copy of the image file Google and it will present a variety of other images that are visually similar.