BitDepth#1512
MARK LYNDERSAY
BY NOW, everyone has heard the calypsonian copyright story. Many have a strong opinions about it, pro and con.
A freelance photographer took a picture of a calypsonian and published it in 2011.
The producers of a fundraising event ignored the photographer's requests for payment for the use of his photo in promotions.
The case went to court. The calypsonian's family did not mount a defence. A default judgement in the sum of $360,550 was announced a week ago.
Understanding the issue might be clearer if we consider it in more tangible and familiar terms.
"Mr Smith, you were arrested driving your neighbour's vehicle after it was reported stolen."
"Your honour, what happened was, I had arrangements to do some rideshares for people and I needed a car. My family needed the money bad, sir, we had no groceries in the fridge."
"Where was your car, Mr Smith?"
"I doesn't have one, your honour."
"So the solution to your problem was to steal the car, Mr Smith?"
"Not as such sir, I did take it without asking and did plan to bring it back with gas in the tank, sir. No harm done."
"Taking without asking is actually a definition of theft, Mr Smith, and harm was done. You caused your neighbour distress; you deprived him of his property for your own gain. You didn't even try to ask permission. You ignored him when he asked if you knew anything about his car. As a first-time offender, you will have five years in prison to think about the wisdom of your actions."
Overheard in the resulting uproar in the courtroom.
"But he is a good boy; he was just trying to help his family."
"Five years! That judge is a beast! He have no heart."
"Why that neighbour so? He doh even use the car that often."
In court filings in the matter pending an appeal, Ernest Koylass, SC, explained, regarding the case, "The defendant is a 77-year-old widow in uncertain health, and her failure to file an appearance and later defence was unknowing of the consequence and not intentional."
Copyright is regularly contemplated in this space, and image infringement considerations are not new. Laura Ferreira (technewstt.com/bd1008/) sought legal redress when her highly produced image of a model was used as decoration at a party by rapper TI.
Photographers covering Carnival-related events are perceived to be getting a free ride while profiting significantly from covering shows and parties. Maria Nunes offered her own perspective in 2019 (link.technewstt.com/nunes).
Last week's online outrage was fuelled by the size of the judgement, but the case is further complicated because it involves the likeness of a deceased beloved artist and by an event held to raise funds to meet medical costs incurred over his long illness.
But the court is more likely to consider the fact that the event promoters were told of their infringement and chose to ignore it. That they were unwilling to negotiate with the photographer and, ultimately, by the fact that the defendant didn't show up to tell their side of the story.
