In a recent case, a home improvement company in Bradford lifted 21 images from the website of a loft conversion company in the London area when it decided to move into loft conversion work and wanted some illustrations.
Absolute Lofts South West London Ltd. sued the Bradford company, Artisan, and its owner, Mr Lubbock, and won substantial damages. Artisan admitted liability and the judge awarded a total of £6300 in damages – £300 for ‘compensatory damages’ and a further £6000 – 20 times the basic compensation– because of the flagrant nature of the breach.
Photo by iloveart106
In a case like this, compensatory damages are calculated on a theoretical basis of what might have been agreed for the use of the images between two willing parties. Experts instructed by each of the parties came up with different figures – the expert for Absolute Lofts argued that Artisan would have paid £9000 for a professional photographer to take those pictures. Artisan reckoned the figure was less than £1000. The judge did not think much of either expert opinion and decided £300 was the right amount as this was what it would have cost to source similar images from a photographic library.
However, the judge then decided that additional damages were due. Section 97 (2) of the Copyright Designs & Patent Act 1988 allows additional damages when there is a flagrant infringement of copyright. And Article 13(2) of the EU Directive on The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights allows for damages appropriate to the prejudice suffered by the injured party.
Artisan’s owner knew that the images were being used without consent. But the judge also found that Artisan had directly profited from the photographs on their website – it seems that they not only implied the company had expertise in loft conversions, but its profits increased as a result. Even though the distance between the two companies did not mean that Absolute Lofts suffered from direct loss of business as a result of Artisan’s action, the judge nonetheless thought there was prejudice and so awarded the £6000 additional damages.
The internet is often seen as a free resource where you can pick up and copy other people’s pictures or text and use them on another website. This case underlines the fact that you do so at your peril, and do remember that it is relatively easy for a copyright owner to search for and find duplication on the web.
There are plenty of free images available online, and Google search now allows you to search by license. There is a system of Creative Commons licensing that allows image publishers to declare the details of how they want their images shared. Because of this, the courts are likely to get increasingly firm on blatant infringements.
So, if you are engaging a designer, be sure to check that their contract makes it clear that nothing they supply will infringe any third party’s copyright. Our designers’ contract template covers this along with all the other things you need to consider when working with designers.
For the full case report see: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2015/2608.html