Hannover House Inc (HHSE)

[downthehatch]

He shot some party photos, and he deserves to be paid (whether or not we had any legitimate use for photos shot in a theatre lobby). However, we are told that he invented an arbitrary and absurd amount, rather than suing for the pre-agreed fee of $1,000. Our counsel informs us that you cannot invent a claim for "a hundred-kagillion dollars in damages" if the agreement for services called for a payment of only $1,000. Such an action is considered an abuse-of-process, and subjects the Plaintiff to paying sanctions and legal fees to HHSE. So, if we're ever served this lawsuit, our attorney will file a motion with the court while simultaneously "tendering" the $1,000 fee. If the Plaintiff accepts the payment, we would be willing to drop our counter claim for sanctions and legal fees.

Eric will be very lucky if the plaintiff here accepts the $1,000 payment!

His lawyer, whoever that may be, is half right: Of course you can't "invent a claim for a hundred kajillion in damages". But you can sue for both breach of contract (the $1,000 they admit owing) and for copyright violation damages, which is what the plaintiff's second claim is about. If HH had not actually USED the photo's that they did not pay for, but acknowledge they should have paid for, the plaintiff would have no case. But Eric actually posted the photos on the HH Facebook page, blog page, etc, and used the photograph's that were the property of the photographer, until such time as HH paid him. I guarantee you that every one of those photo's had a copyright statement attached to it, that Eric simply ignored.
While the plaintiff could indeed be sanctioned for a frivolous claim, it is not frivolous if you have a prima facie case of copyright violation, with non-owned photos posted on the FB and blog pages of Hannover House, in violation of the photographers copyright.