http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke%5C8417.html
Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Suspect files copyright suit against Radford police
by Jen McCaffery

Photographer Bob Shell sued the Radford Police Department on Tuesday for copyright infringement for images police seized in their investigation of the death of one of his models.

In the latest development in an increasingly acrimonious situation, the photographer claims that the Radford Police Department has copied more than 600 of his images in violation of federal copyright law.

"That's not kosher. You just don't do that without permission," Shell said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon. He described himself as not only a well-known photographer, but also said that he had testified as an expert in copyright law cases.

Some of the best copyright lawyers in the United States are working as consultants on the case, Shell said. They have said that this is the first case of its kind they have seen, in which a law enforcement agency has been sued for copying images in a criminal investigation, said Shell, 57. He would not name those lawyers, however.

Shell said that under federal law, he's entitled to collect $150,000 per image that the Radford Police Department has reproduced without his permission. Radford could be held liable for a penalty of $90 million, Shell said. He also is seeking punitive damages and attorneys fees in the case. He is represented in this case by Roanoke attorney Hal Adkins.

Tara Branscom, a Roanoke attorney who specializes in intellectual property at the firm of LeClair Ryan Flippin Densmore, said, "It's a very unusual action to take."

Typically, when people sue for copyright infringement, it is because someone is not only using copyrighted material, but also profiting from it, Branscom said. She anticipated that the police could refer to some other law that would say an investigation should trump copyright concerns.

The filing of the lawsuit makes good on threats Shell has made in previous court proceedings in the case against him, which has been increasingly contentious. Shell is set to stand trial in January in connection with the overdose death of one of his former models, Marion Franklin.

Shell is charged with felony homicide, three counts of defiling a corpse, attempted sodomy, two counts of attempted animate object penetration and three drug charges in connection with Franklin's death.

Franklin, 19, overdosed on morphine in Shell's photography studio in downtown Radford in June 2003. State authorities blame him for supplying the morphine to Franklin, but Shell has denied any wrongdoing in Franklin's death. Federal authorities also are reportedly investigating the case.

Radford Commonwealth's Attorney Chris Rehak said he had heard Shell threaten before that he might sue for copyright infringement during prior court proceedings in the case. Rehak declined to comment further on the case.

Shell cited several examples of what he described as copyright infringement. The images were of his models, he said.

One detective in the police department carried a notebook with a picture of Franklin that Shell took taped to the front, Shell said. He would not name the detective.

"They took all three of my computers and they have literally thousands and thousands of my images," Shell said.

Police from the department also have printed out some of those images and shown them to people outside the law enforcement community, Shell argued. He would not supply the names of the people who told him that or any more information about the allegations.

"That's not kosher. You just don't do that without permission,"


Yeah and I'm sure all the dead girls gave him permission to take their photographs and profit off them.

I'd like to hear Mary Beth Peters (Register of Copyrights) comment.

I the current copyright law prohibits using evidence in a multiple murder/rape case - that is f*cked up! This would pretty much make it impossible to convict anyone ever again "I am sorry, but Smith and Wesson owns the copyright on that murder weapon, and doesn't want any bad press, you can't use it."

Though, as sue happy as the people of this country are, I would not be shocked to see him win this case!

LOL Lachatte. Hopefully these absurd attempts to apply copyright will show just how out of whack the law is.

If he's so unwilling to let his images be viewed, then he must have done something. If you're trully innocent, then you cooperate with authorities and give them access to the things they need to conduct an investigation. I'm sure these police officers had a warrant to search his premises. If so, they found something and had reason to seize his computers.

Copyright vs. right to live. Doesn’t say whether he violated the DMCA – arrest those pesky cops.

"Typically, when people sue for copyright infringement, it is because someone is not only using copyrighted material, but also profiting from it, Branscom said."

I guess the RIAA is not typical then.

Well, the RIAA opened this and several other doors in their pursuit of locking up copywrite. As they push the buttons of those purchased politicans to get the laws initiated there doesn't seem to be much worry over what they have really done.

What they have really done is open a whole new way to litigate with copywrite. In the rush to do so many broad holes have been left in the law by the vagueness of the terms of the law.

This we only are after p2p doesn't hold water at all. The law isn't just for the entertainment industry, it is for the nation. When ever you have a law enacted, no matter the intent at some point it is going to be looked over with a fine toothed comb by someone looking to take advantage of it and apply it to their situtation.

It would be a howl to see the majors get caught in their own trap of infringement. A sort of victum of their own making.

OMFG that's TOO funny!

This guy really doesn't know what he's up against!

"Shell said that under federal law, he's entitled to collect $150,000 per image that the Radford Police Department has reproduced without his permission. "

Didn't the RIAA threaten to sue for that amount per song? So is $150,000 a magic number for "infringement damages?"

I THINK ( don't quote me ) it's the maximum allowable damage per infringement, at least until they allow the death penalty for it.

$150,000 = max amount chargable per infringement

methinks copyright is stupid, it only hampers creative growth

This guy is suing for $90 million. He could settle for something less, just like the RIAA. What goes around, comes around.