ILNews

Judge rules for defendants in Indy skyline photo copyright suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A retired attorney and photographer who has filed numerous infringement lawsuits over the use of his copyrighted photo of the Indianapolis skyline lost a contested case. The ruling judge also said the purported value of the photo is questionable.

Richard N. Bell has sued hundreds of people for their use on websites of a skyline photo of the city he took in 2000 and copyrighted in 2011. Nearly all the cases have settled, but some parties to the instant litigation label Bell a copyright troll; he claims he’s defending his copyright against people who failed to pay a licensing fee before using the photo on their websites without permission.

On Tuesday, District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment in Richard N. Bell v. Cameron Taylor, Taylor Computer Solutions, Insurance Concepts, Fred O’Brien, and Shanna Cheatam, 1:13-CV-00798.

“Mr. Bell contends that he is entitled to actual damages of $200.00 (from each defendant), as he has ‘sold for several years and currently sells the perpetual commercial rights to display digital download version [sic] of all his photos ... for use on the web for $200,’” Pratt wrote. “However, as Defendants note, Mr. Bell has not produced any objective evidence of the Indianapolis Photo’s value.

“(T)here is no evidence other than Mr. Bell’s unsupported assertion that he has sold the rights to the Indianapolis Photo for years at a price of $200.00. Without any support or evidence, this value is based on undue speculation,” Pratt wrote.

Bell also failed to show that defendants profited from the use of his photo on their websites, which would have entitled him to damages based on indirect profits. The court said Bell made overbroad discovery requests – in one case asking for 11 years’ worth of income tax records from Indianapolis Realtor Shanna Cheatam.

“Mr. Bell had opportunity to tailor his discovery requests based on the Court’s rulings, but he failed to do so,” Pratt wrote. “The Court finds Mr. Bell’s assertion that he ‘believes’ further ‘research and investigation’ will lead to issues of genuine material fact to be speculative.

“Additionally, the Court notes that the record does contain web reports from ShannaSells.com, despite Mr. Bell’s argument that he needs such reports, and presumably, the reports could have been used to attempt a causal nexus. However, the Court will not scour the record to create an argument for Mr. Bell.”

The Taylor defendants were granted summary judgment because they used a nighttime photo of the Indianapolis skyline that Bell claimed infringed his copyright. The court did not allow Bell’s complaint to be amended to include that image.

Since 2011, Bell has filed nearly two dozen copyright infringement suits in the Southern District, many naming multiple defendants. Only this case and another remained open as of Wednesday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT