It isn’t quite that simple. One can look at this in the reverse. Perez didn’t pay any money, that we know of, and Hilton built much of his career on the images in question.

I think it is. You can either look at what each side says it wants, or what you know they want based on the suit itself and the actions that proceeded it.

We know that X-17 wanted Hilton to stop using their images without paying for them, or, save that, to stop using them altogether. We also know that Hilton wanted to continue using them without paying for them — we can be pretty sure there was never going to be a point where he’d pay to use them.

What was the result of the settlement that we know of? Hilton will no longer be using X-17 IP. Regardless of what the other terms were, the plaintiff got what it wanted and the defendant didn’t. That sounds like a win if you ask me.

Minors can hold copyright, both in the U.S. and the UK, where Coton is from. [..] The good news here for Coton is that, since she is from the UK, she has no obligations to register her work.

Thanks for the specifics, it sounds like she has a decent case.

We are trying to say the same thing here, that the case was kicked back to the lower court.

I really just wanted to be explicitly clear on this because I’ve seen so many reputable outlets report that Grokster had actually been found liable and guilty of copyright infringement and their hearing before the Supreme Court was actually their last venue of appeal, and that’s obviously about as wrong as could possibly be.

Glad we’re all clear on that now.

It’s easy, ask yourself if the plaintiff got what they wanted. X17 either wanted the images taken down or for Hilton to pay for them. If the images aren’t going to be used anymore, then X17 clearly “won”.

It isn’t quite that simple. One can look at this in the reverse. Perez didn’t pay any money, that we know of, and Hilton built much of his career on the images in question. One could also look at this as a case supporting “seeking forgiveness” rather than “asking permission”.

One could argue that a minor can’t hold a copyright either, and since I’ve never heard that raised as a claim before, it seems pretty novel at the least.

Minors can hold copyright, both in the U.S. and the UK, where Coton is from.

Moreover, in all likelihood she never filed a copyright registration which the law requires before you can file suit for infringement to recover statutory damages. Her lawyer probably should have known that so either he skipped that class in law school and will lose because of *that*, or she filed post-infringement in which case it’s going to be ugly trying to prove it was hers to begin with.

The good news here for Coton is that, since she is from the UK, she has no obligations to register her work. U.S. law is clear, as per the Berne convention, that those outside the country do not have to register their work.

I do not recall if non-citizens are required to register before they sue, but the do not have to to claim statutory damages in the U.S. This issue has not come up in the court filings for this reason.

That is not true, the Supreme Court may have said some interesting things in their opinion, but ultimately they only ruled that the initial summary judgment was inappropriate and they remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Actually, this one is my mistake. The could should be a should in the sentence about awarding damages. We are trying to say the same thing here, that the case was kicked back to the lower court.

Since the settlement terms have not been disclosed, it is difficult to declare a “winner” or a “loser” though it is worth noting that X17’s images are no longer displayed on Hilton’s site.

It’s easy, ask yourself if the plaintiff got what they wanted. X17 either wanted the images taken down or for Hilton to pay for them. If the images aren’t going to be used anymore, then X17 clearly “won”.

When Lara Jade Coton was 14, she took a photo of herself wearing a top hat and sitting in a window. Four years later, …

There are two things at play here: as far as copyright law goes, the issues are how the image came to be used by TVX and whether or not fair use comes int play — commercial use doesn’t always exclude fair use, but the stronger case could be a violation of privacy or defamation.

One could argue that a minor can’t hold a copyright either, and since I’ve never heard that raised as a claim before, it seems pretty novel at the least.

Moreover, in all likelihood she never filed a copyright registration which the law requires before you can file suit for infringement to recover statutory damages. Her lawyer probably should have known that so either he skipped that class in law school and will lose because of *that*, or she filed post-infringement in which case it’s going to be ugly trying to prove it was hers to begin with.

Definitely the most interesting case of the group, imho.

Many, understandably, felt that the Grokster case was resolved after the Supreme Court decision in 2005. However, the ruling, which found that Grokster could be held liable for the infringements that took place by those that used their software. It did not determine what damages could be awarded, what would constitute reasonable protections by such a service among other questions. So, the case went back to the district court where StreamCast, one of the defendants in the case, is fighting on.

That is not true, the Supreme Court may have said some interesting things in their opinion, but ultimately they only ruled that the initial summary judgment was inappropriate and they remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Essentially, they ordered it to full trial.

Contrary to popular opinion, Grokster never lost its case at the Supreme Court because the case was never actually heard, and should it have gone any further, it’s reasonably possible that they could have won their defense and had it affirmed even up through the Supreme Court as the facts of the case itself would have been a different matter than that of the summary judgment.

Grokster gave in because going through a full trial and appeals process would have cost too much money, as often happens when fighting massive corporations over intellectual property rights, the corporation wins by default simply because they can afford to.