A Controversial Copyright Issue

[32BT]

It would have been embarrassing for the school to claim ownership after the photog went public.

Well, not surprisingly, according to Wikipedia, "Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft."

But judges have stated:

Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead,

"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'"

Give me a break.

Maybe it's comparable to trespassing. You can knowingly walk on to someone's property but that obviously doesn't equate to you claiming the property as your own. Thus "trespassing" does not constitute takings.

[JoeKitchen]

For private sector: of course, since they can simply file for bankruptcy or use other diversionary tactics. For government or singular public entities, clearly this can't be the case. If the government is dismantled because an individual member creates intentional trouble, we probably would live in chaos real quick. Similarly, if you set up a public university (or a public library for example), it would not be very useful or fair to the public if they can no longer enjoy the services by the wrongdoing of a single individual.

This is a rather depressing way at looking at suits, but I doubt it is accurate. 

You can sue the government, just not for copyright it appears.  I was actually photographing the Cathedral of Bryn Athyn a few years back, which is owned by the Pitcairns (actually the entire town of Bryn Athyn is owned by the Pitcairns).  One of the sons is a rather brilliant engineer and invented something for use on military helicopters.  The US military stole the technology and the son sued them for it.  It was an extremely expensive suit and the military thought there was not way he would be able to afford it, which is why they did not settle, but they knew little of the family.  They are wealthier than God, and he eventually won.  However, most people would not have the wherewithal to do so and is probably more the reason why it does not happen often.
 
(Most) Can't Fight City Hall! 

[Alan Goldhammer]

This is a rather depressing way at looking at suits, but I doubt it is accurate. 

You can sue the government, just not for copyright it appears.  I was actually photographing the Cathedral of Bryn Athyn a few years back, which is owned by the Pitcairns (actually the entire town of Bryn Athyn is owned by the Pitcairns).  One of the sons is a rather brilliant engineer and invented something for use on military helicopters.  The US military stole the technology and the son sued them for it.  It was an extremely expensive suit and the military thought there was not way he would be able to afford it, which is why they did not settle, but they knew little of the family.  They are wealthier than God, and he eventually won.  However, most people would not have the wherewithal to do so and is probably more the reason why it does not happen often.
 
(Most) Can't Fight City Hall!

The same thing happened to the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper.  Ford and Chrysler used the technology without licensing it and Robert Kearns eventually prevailed in court.  The car companies tried to invalidate the patent claiming it was not novel.  He lost a bunch of other lawsuits against other auto manufacturers.  There was even a movie made about this.

[32BT]

This is a rather depressing way at looking at suits, but I doubt it is accurate. 

You can sue the government, just not for copyright it appears.  I was actually photographing the Cathedral of Bryn Athyn a few years back, which is owned by the Pitcairns (actually the entire town of Bryn Athyn is owned by the Pitcairns).  One of the sons is a rather brilliant engineer and invented something for use on military helicopters.  The US military stole the technology and the son sued them for it.  It was an extremely expensive suit and the military thought there was not way he would be able to afford it, which is why they did not settle, but they knew little of the family.  They are wealthier than God, and he eventually won.  However, most people would not have the wherewithal to do so and is probably more the reason why it does not happen often.
 
(Most) Can't Fight City Hall!

Well, it probably was stated slightly provocative, but only to illustrate the point. I recall Volkswagen settling liability, that would obviously be a diversionary tactic. With whom should a government body settle if that were necessary? With themselves? Also, in my country it's not uncommon for shady construction companies to ward off liability via bankruptcy. Probably not the only country, nor the only industry. Insurance liabilities come to mind, investment schemes, you name it.

And yes, I do agree that the legal system has become heavily biased towards financially broad shoulders.

[Rob C]

Well, it probably was stated slightly provocative, but only to illustrate the point. I recall Volkswagen settling liability, that would obviously be a diversionary tactic. With whom should a government body settle if that were necessary? With themselves? Also, in my country it's not uncommon for shady construction companies to ward off liability via bankruptcy. Probably not the only country, nor the only industry. Insurance liabilities come to mind, investment schemes, you name it.

And yes, I do agree that the legal system has become heavily biased towards financially broad shoulders.

And why those with no money, but with substantially broader shoulders than some, take justice and payback into their own hands.

Can you blame them?

[Alan Klein]

I did find this paragraph intriguing, though:

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) was supposed to remove state institutions from immunity of this kind, but appeal courts such as the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas often refuse to recognize it.


It would be, er, unusual for a court, even an appellate court, to "refuse to recognis[z]e" an Act of Parliament in the UK.

Jeremy

Sovereign State rights vs. federal (national) rights have always been a contentious issue in the USA.   States often sue the Federal government and vice versa.  The Supreme Court has to resolve where the power resides. It came to a head in our Civil War where the South felt their rights were infringed.    Unfortunately, I think state rights have suffered over the years and we have created a more powerful central government, something our founders tried to avoid.  They hated political power as corrosive and insidious, something many of our people seem to favor today.

[Chris Kern]

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) was supposed to remove state institutions from immunity of this kind, but appeal courts such as the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas often refuse to recognize it.

It would be, er, unusual for a court, even an appellate court, to "refuse to recognis[z]e" an Act of Parliament in the UK.

Sovereign State rights vs. federal (national) rights have always been a contentious issue in the USA.

A series of federal court decisions have ruled that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990, which purports to restrict the sovereign immunity of state governments to federal lawsuits for copyright infringement.  That's why the Texas court did not rely on the statute in its decision on the lawsuit involving the state university.  It is possible the Supreme Court will decide an appeal to one of those rulings this term (which ends this month) that might clarify the precise constitutional boundaries where there is a conflict between the sovereign immunity of the states and the authority of Congress to protect intellectual property.