Gary Fong = one pitiful bully

[OneWayMule]

A small time photographer in Texas copied an action made by Gary Fong and unwisely boasted about it on forums. So Mr.Fong showed up on TexasPhotoForum.com just a few days ago and publicly begins intimidating this poor guy with talks of lawyer and lawsuit and whatnot.

No doubt the Texan made a mistake and should pay some small amount, but instead Gary starts crowing about how he's won previous lawsuit for $245,000+ 6 years ago. Fong's idea of informing the forum on "intellectual property" and "trade-dressing" is to showboat & use scare tactics.


Says Gary:
"And here is what we will be seeking in court, triple damages for all of our loss in sales, the legal costs of an injunction, as well as legal costs of prosecuting our claim. I also want to add that under the new bankruptcy laws, we can attach assets and wages until the judgement is paid in full, which in some cases can last a lifetime"

For one dopey photoshop action he would seriously ruin someone's life if the law allowed him



Its amazing, Gary is still dragging the names of the couple from whom he won the $245k on his forum and now this Texan's. Why he feels the need to do it out in the open and humiliate himself along with others he's bullying ...


Absolutely sad & classless

Link to the forum (registration required) > http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=21743

[Bob Bell]

I am kind of sad about the 2 comments on this. if someone did this to your photograph you would be discussing lawsuits with him if proper compesation was not made quickly. Websites and ISP get letters all the time about hotlinking or stealing images and it is a serious issue.

Copyright laws are there to protect the creator of things like photographs, intellectual property, etc.... from theft and allow compensation for both the single use and from lost future revenue. Its the same if you make 20k a year and 200k a year.

[OneWayMule]

Bob, i never said gary should sit idle.
In fact, in my original post, i said some sort of retribution should be made.

But Gary is way over his head! Its just one silly action out of many that someone copied and gary is talking of retribution that can 'take a lifetime of wage' to pay??
For one PS action(!!!!!!)

Thats downright greedy, demented and immoral.
Just cos your lawyer says you can rape someone financially doesnt mean you should. And this guy has already done that once before.

And the way he's dealing with it is childish at best.

[DavidTO]

Originally Posted by Bob Bell

I am kind of sad about the 2 comments on this. if someone did this to your photograph you would be discussing lawsuits with him if proper compesation was not made quickly. Websites and ISP get letters all the time about hotlinking or stealing images and it is a serious issue.

Copyright laws are there to protect the creator of things like photographs, intellectual property, etc.... from theft and allow compensation for both the single use and from lost future revenue. Its the same if you make 20k a year and 200k a year.

Bob, it's not what he's doing, it's that he's being publicly caustic. I think he's taking it too far, but more than anything, he's acting like a bull in a china shop, IMO. He could post that he's going to take action. Then take action. He's instead acting like a bully. I do support his right to protect his intellectual property.

[ian408]

Patent law and copyright infringement are difficult cases to prosecute and
I am surprised that Mr. Fong would go to the trouble of registering on a
site, making claims of infringement all the while harassing the guy. You
would think, if he had a legitimate claim, that he would just let the dogs
loose to hunt him down

It's amazing the number of people that buy rights to things simply because
they have enough lawyers to aggresively defend their patents. One such
case is the recent claim against BlackBerry by NTP. Heck, my understanding
is that it's not even been decided (by the courts) if there is a claim yet
it was settled for some insane amount of money.

Unfortunately, if the guy really did copy Fong's action, then a deserves what
he gets (whether it is morally right or wrong does not matter).

[Bob Bell]

Originally Posted by DavidTO

Bob, it's not what he's doing, it's that he's being publicly caustic. I think he's taking it too far, but more than anything, he's acting like a bull in a china shop, IMO. He could post that he's going to take action. Then take action. He's instead acting like a bully. I do support his right to protect his intellectual property.

David, Thats a good point. I look at it like maybe he is being that caustic in public because it might stop other people from doing the same thing. I could be way off here but many people are used to taking things off the internet and assuming ownership, which through recent laws has been made illegal like music sharing.

OneWayMule,

Where does it stop. 1 Action?, 1 downloaded Warez, 1 download song, 1 downloaded Movie. These are illegal activities. Its not greedy, demented, or immoral to expect people not to steal from you and if they do, that they appropriately compesate for the action and time to recover. Gary is legally entitled to compensation for his work. A single action would probably be a small fine plus full restitution plus gary's court costs. If you break the speed limit you get a speeding fine if caught. Do you not believe that $200 is fair for breaking the law? Then don't speed. It's that simple. Now go break the law and then taunt the owner of the intellectual property with it, thats stupid twice, blatent, and intentional.

[W.W. Webster]

Originally Posted by Bob Bell

Gary is legally entitled to compensation for his work .... Now go break the law and then taunt the owner of the intellectual property with it, thats stupid twice, blatent, and intentional.

Theft is theft, irrespective of the net worth of the victim. I hope Gary succeeds in suing the pants off him.

[davev]

I don't know the whole story here, but I'll put this spin on it.

If I had never seen Mr.Fong's action, started playing with actions in PS, and
came up with one with the same sequence, or something very close to it,
does he really have a case. Couldn't I post my action if I wanted to?
Does he have a exclusive license from Adobe to write
add-ons for their program and sell them? Do you need one?

Maybe Adobe should go after Mr Fong.

[ian408]

Originally Posted by davev

I don't know the whole story here, but I'll put this spin on it.

The answer is "it depends". Why? For one, "is it a copy of the work", is
it a "derivative" or is it "unique"?

If the answer is determined to be "unique" then, Mr. Fong may not have
a case. Otherwise he may and the question then becomes one of how much
of a case?

There may be some very different interpretations as to what constitutes
"unique" as well. So all bets are off until the facts of the case are revealed :)

And by case, I mean the real legal version--if it's ever filed.

[marlinspike]

I've heard he's also goes into bully mode if you ever say anything bad about the lightsphere to him or try to return it.

[LeDude]

Originally Posted by Bob Bell

A single action would probably be a small fine plus full restitution plus gary's court costs.

Never say never, but it is extremely rare that court costs are awarded, and, of course, they are only recovered when a party wins. With that in mind, realize that legal costs will generally exceed the value of a small claim. This is likely even more significant in intellectual property, where the elements of a complaint can be very difficult to prove.

With this information, it becomes a little more clear why and what is going on. Small infringements cannot be efficiently pursued. Small infringements can, however, become numerous and extremely costly. The approach on Mr. Wong's part then is NOT to pursue infringement post hoc, but to limit infringement: Fire prevention, not fire fighting.

The RIAA is taking a similar approach with illegal digital downloads. They make a big stink about prosecuting grandma and little 14 yr. old Joey ("we'll go after ANYONE!!!") in order to scare off as many infringers as possible. Grandma is scared of some nazi-like raid on her home and computer. Joey's parents think, "shit, we better see what Joey's doing on that computer of his. We can't afford a lawsuit!" (hint, hint, it's all a big show!)

Two notes on this post.
1) I am making no judgment on the ethical/moral actions taken by either Mr. Wong or the RIAA or anyone else; just trying to provide some insight into what is going on.

2) Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice. The verity of any statement herein is not guaranteed. Nothing herein should be relied upon in any way. I am a law student, not a lawyer.

-Rich

(isn't law fun?? )

[Bob Bell]

Originally Posted by LeDude

Never say never, but it is extremely rare that court costs are awarded, and, of course, they are only recovered when a party wins. With that in mind, realize that legal costs will generally exceed the value of a small claim. This is likely even more significant in intellectual property, where the elements of a complaint can be very difficult to prove.

With this information, it becomes a little more clear why and what is going on. Small infringements cannot be efficiently pursued. Small infringements can, however, become numerous and extremely costly. The approach on Mr. Wong's part then is NOT to pursue infringement post hoc, but to limit infringement: Fire prevention, not fire fighting.

The RIAA is taking a similar approach with illegal digital downloads. They make a big stink about prosecuting grandma and little 14 yr. old Joey ("we'll go after ANYONE!!!") in order to scare off as many infringers as possible. Grandma is scared of some nazi-like raid on her home and computer. Joey's parents think, "shit, we better see what Joey's doing on that computer of his. We can't afford a lawsuit!" (hint, hint, it's all a big show!)

Two notes on this post.
1) I am making no judgment on the ethical/moral actions taken by either Mr. Wong or the RIAA or anyone else; just trying to provide some insight into what is going on.

2) Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice. The verity of any statement herein is not guaranteed. Nothing herein should be relied upon in any way. I am a law student, not a lawyer.

-Rich

(isn't law fun?? )

Interesting stuff Rich. What field of law are you interested in? Copyright by any chance :)

[LeDude]

Originally Posted by Bob Bell

Interesting stuff Rich. What field of law are you interested in? Copyright by any chance :)

Naturally...

Honestly, I think I'll be in entertainment law if I practice, but that might change. What I do know is that I'll be working with musicians. Intellectual property (esp. copyright), contract law and agency (and, of course, TAX!-always need to know the Taxman) are the big three in entertainment law.

[marlinspike]

Originally Posted by LeDude

any way. I am a law student, not a lawyer.

-Rich

Now I understand that other post you made in the thread where I mentioned law school.

[marlof]

Originally Posted by LeDude

(isn't law fun?? )

Law rocks!