A Texas appeals court has rejected a photographer’s declare that the unauthorized use of one of his photographs via a county university amounted to a property “taking” by a government entity. The photographer, Jim Olive of Houston, is looking for compensation for the alleged belongings taken in a state court instead of claiming copyright infringement in a federal courtroom because governments have immunity from copyright infringement claims. But the kingdom and federal legal guidelines restrict governments from taking property without repayment to property owners.
“We hold that Olive’s takings declare, which is based totally on a single act of copyright infringement via the University [of Houston], isn’t feasible,” the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas stated in its ruling. Olive sued the University of Houston in 2018, alleging unlawful taking beneath the Texas state charter and the U.S. Constitution. The declaration concerning the unauthorized use of one of his aerial photos of the metropolis of Houston, which he shot from a helicopter at nightfall in 2005. Olive alleged that during 2012, the University of Houston downloaded the photograph, eliminated copyright and attribution information, and displayed the picture on numerous internet pages of the college’s business college. Olive determined that the unauthorized use had been made more than three years later. He demanded that the university stop displaying the picture, and the college at once complied.
Olive eventually sued in a Texas district court. He sought “just compensation” for the unlawful taking. Olive didn’t sue for copyright infringement because authorities have sovereign immunity from tort (i.e., civil) claims, including copyright infringement claims. The university asked the district court to throw the claim out when considering that copyright is not considered an asset for the country and federal “takings” statutes. And even if copyright is taken into consideration property under those statutes, the university argued, its actions did not quantity to a taking of Olive’s assets, due to the fact. At the same time, it could have infringed Olive’s copyright; it did no longer take his copyright. (Olive still has control of his copyright to the image in question.)
