Copyright infringement lawsuits make Indy skyline photo worth a lot more than 1,000 words

[Wilhelm]

Grumpy Cat may be known for her frown, but owner Tabatha Bundesen can smile after being awarded $710,000 dollars in a case by a California court. Nathan Rousseau Smith 

Rich Bell indy skyline photoBuy Photo
Rich Bell is a retired lawyer who has filed or threatened hundreds of copyright infringement lawsuits over a photo he shot of the Indianapolis skyline in 2000, pictured at bottom right. Bell poses for a portrait against a wall of pictures he has taken, at his home in McCordsville, Ind., Thursday, April 26, 2018. (Photo: Jenna Watson/IndyStar)Buy Photo

Rich Bell doesn't look like a bully.

"I don't think so," the retired lawyer said. "But obviously some people think I am."

He said he won't sue "little old ladies." One time a kid's parents called and asked for lenience, which Bell granted.

Others who published Bell's 18-year-old photograph of the Indianapolis skyline without permission get a letter asking for $5,000 to $10,000, depending on how long the photo has been used and how blatant the infringement. He has special contempt for people who have put their own copyright mark on his photo. 

There have been about 200 infringement cases, including two judgments of $150,000 apiece in Bell's favor. Usually, companies or their liability insurance settle the claim. Those who don't settle or don't respond will become part of his steady stream of copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court in Indianapolis. 

Supreme Court case: Why the Indiana attorney general believes a prosecutor's ISIS 'drumbeat' wasn't wrong

Troubled coach: Golf course owner tried to help Greenwood coach now accused of dealing heroin, meth

Just in higher education, Bell has gone after Indiana University, Purdue University, the University of Indianapolis and Marian University. Even the University of Washington.

"It happened to be a professor on the University of Washington staff that used it," Bell said. "He was promoting a conference he was having in Indianapolis."

Real estate companies have been the worst culprits, Bell said. He also has pending cases against Merchants Bank and the head of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. Both dispute the allegations in court documents. 

All over a photo Bell took on March 8, 2000, from West St. Clair Street. He returned that night for another photo from the site, which has also been used without permission.

"I think there's a number of people who don't even know that that area exists," Bell said. "It's down on the canal, and it's a very picturesque area. At that time, most of the buildings didn't even have any lettering on them."

This is Rich Bell's 2000 photo that has been the subject of hundreds of copyright infringement lawsuits or threats of a lawsuit that settled. Used with permission of Rich Bell. (Photo: Rich Bell / Rich Bell Photos)

In the ensuing years, he sold rights to the photograph a few times, Bell recalled in an interview at his McCordsville home, where numerous photos of his adorn the walls. He is a self-taught photographer.

It wasn't until 2011 that he became interested in infringement. Bell's wife, Diane, discovered the photo in a magazine.

"Isn't that your photograph?" she said.

"It sure does look like it," Bell replied.

That started him on an effort to learn more about copyright law and, eventually, start quarterly sessions each year on Google Images to discover people using his image without permission.

"The law is designed to make sure people don't steal other people's works," Bell said. "In particular, to put your copyright notice on there and try to tell people that it's yours. That, to me, is wrong."

Bell doesn't win them all and has been called a "copyright troll."

He lost a $22,289 judgment to reimburse a defendant for legal fees after suing him but being unable to find his screen grab of the photo. Bell said his computer was corrupted and he lost the evidence.

"Mr. Bell has filed a multiplicity of suits in this Court, each involving the same or similar infringement allegations," federal judge Tanya Walton Pratt wrote. "In many of these copyright infringement suits, Mr. Bell has improperly joined several defendants, thereby saving him extensive filing fees. In this case alone, Mr. Bell sued forty-seven defendants and then quickly offered settlements to defendants who were unwilling to pay for a legal defense."

Mitch Stoltz, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that while copyright infringement does exist and is against the law, he added that the legal penalties are out of proportion to a photo's value or the harm suffered by the copyright holder.

"Those really high penalties create an incentive to embark on litigation campaigns," Stoltz said. "Even when they follow all the rules, they carry an air of extortion: 'Nice web site you have there. Shame if something happened to it.'"

In one pending case in federal court in Indianapolis, an out of state man who used the photo to promote forensic training in Indianapolis is arguing that the photo is actually "work product" from Bell's days as a lawyer at Cohen & Malad. The defendant says Bell took the photo on work time and the company posted it on its website, meaning he doesn't actually own it.

John Nelson, attorney for the defendant, declined comment, citing the upcoming trial.

Bell makes no apologies and sounds mildly amused by the various legal arguments used against him. He sells lifetime rights to the photo for $200.

Hasn't word gotten around about the photo?

"You'd think," Bell said recently. "But I'm getting ready to sue three people today."