Tag Archives: Photography

Richard Bell sues Forensics Expert over use of Indianapolis skyline photo

13 Friday May 2016

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

It’s official…this being the third day in a row of him filing copyright lawsuits, we have another Richard Bell litigation spree! It had been awhile but Mr. Bell is apparently making up for lost time. Stay tuned to this blog over the next few days as we find out just how many people unwittingly used Mr. Bell’s Indianapolis skyline photographs.

In this action, Mr. Bell is suing a forensics consultant/trainer from Kansas City who used a skyline photo on his company’s website back in 2014.

Use the “Richard Bell” tag at left to find his other litigation.

Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 8.13.29 AM

Richard N. Bell v. Maloney

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01193-RLY-DML
File Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Michael Maloney
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Richard Bell sues Real Estate Company over use of Indianapolis skyline photo

12 Thursday May 2016

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Use the “Richard Bell” tag at left to find other similar litigation involving these Indianapolis skyline photographs.

Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 6.16.58 AM.png

Richard N. Bell v. Carmen Commercial Real Estate Services

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01174-TWP-MPB
File Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Carmen Commercial Real Estate Services
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Richard Bell files two more lawsuits over Indianapolis skyline photos

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in Artists, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Somehow there are still people out there using Richard Bell’s Indianapolis skyline photos on their website, despite years of reporting about it here on this blog!

This time around, Mr. Bell’s photos have snared a lawyer and an IT staffing firm.

People, don’t use Richard Bell’s Indianapolis skyline photos! He WILL sue you.

Indianapolis Skyline but NOT Richard Bell's Indianapolis Skyline

Use the “Richard Bell” tag at left to view his past lawsuits.

Bell v. TeamSoft, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01159-SEB-DML
File Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: TeamSoft, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Bell v. Patrick

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01160-TWP-DML
File Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Michael F.S. Patrick
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Representative Complaint:

Another Richard Bell Copyright Suit

26 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Richard Bell is suing another website for allegedly using an unauthorized copy of his photograph of downtown Indianapolis. In a previous ruling against Mr. Bell (more here), the court was less than pleased with shortcomings in his complaint:

While providing specific facts is not necessary in a complaint, Mr. Bell is required to do more than recite legal conclusions of conduct with generic applicability to various defendants. . . . Legal conclusions are not afforded the assumption of truth. . . . [T]he Court will not afford the assumption of truth to the legal conclusions in Mr. Bell’s complaint. Neither does the Court find any factual allegations that are not legal conclusions, which could entitle him to relief and satisfy the standard of review.

Bell v. McCann, No. 1:13-CV-00799-TWP, 2014 WL 900961, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2014)

Mr. Bell did offer more than legal conclusions in this most recent Complaint (see below) by adding a factual allegation. And although he needed to allege “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Mr. Bell decided to unnecessarily add proof of these alleged facts. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). He included a link to a screenshot of the alleged infringement, although the link just resolves to a blank page.

In any case, don’t use pictures you find on the internet without authorization. Just don’t.

Richard N. Bell v. Proact Search LLC

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-01005-JMS-DKL
File Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Proact Search LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

*Dismissed August 5, 2015*

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Bell v. Find Tickets

20 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Richard Bell is once again alleging copyright infringement for unauthorized use of a photograph of the downtown Indianapolis skyline. This complaint is nearly identical to complaints he has previously filed. In some of those cases, the court has awarded Mr. Bell statutory damages of $2,500. However, the ruling in each of those cases was a default judgment because the defendants failed to answer and defend the allegations. On multiple occasions the court has granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. District Judge Tanya Pratt has, on multiple occasions, called out Mr. Bell for improper practice:

In his pleadings, Mr. Bell has alleged, but has not shown, that he is entitled to relief. His complaint contains formulaic labels and conclusions, but not facts. For example, the complaint under his copyright claim generically alleges that all-originally, twenty-two in total-Defendants: downloaded the Indianapolis Photo; willfully, recklessly, and falsely claimed that it owned the copyright to the photograph; published the photograph for commercial use; engaged in unfair trade practices and competition; and willfully engaged in these acts with oppression, fraud, and malice. . . . While providing specific facts is not necessary in a complaint, Mr. Bell is required to do more than recite legal conclusions of conduct with generic applicability to various defendants. . . . Legal conclusions are not afforded the assumption of truth. . . . [T]he Court will not afford the assumption of truth to the legal conclusions in Mr. Bell’s complaint. Neither does the Court find any factual allegations that are not legal conclusions, which could entitle him to relief and satisfy the standard of review.

Bell v. McCann, No. 1:13-CV-00799-TWP, 2014 WL 900961, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2014)

When looking to Mr. Bell’s motivation for filing this action, the Court finds that Mr. Bell’s motivation is questionable. Mr. Bell has filed a multiplicity of suits in this Court, each involving the same or similar infringement allegations. 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. In some of Mr. Bell’s lawsuits, the district court determined that the improperly joined defendants should be severed, and severance was granted. Further, in this case, Mr. Bell lacked any evidentiary support for his claims against Mr. Lantz. The Court is persuaded by Mr. Lantz’s argument that the motivation of Mr. Bell in filing this action appears to be an attempt to extract quick, small settlements from many defendants instead of using the judicial process to protect his copyright against legitimate infringing actors. . . . In this case, Mr. Lantz took a stand against a plaintiff who was using his knowledge and status as a practicing attorney to file meritless suits and to attempt to outmaneuver the legal system.

Bell v. Lantz, No. 1:13-CV-00035-TWP, 2015 WL 3604174, at *2 & *3 (S.D. Ind. June 8, 2015)

After a cursory search, it appears that Mr. Bell has been awarded statutory damages of $40,000 ($2,500 x 16) from default judgments. In Bell v. Lantz, quoted above, Mr. Bell had to pay Mr. Lantz’s attorney’s fees, totaling $33,974.65.

Richard N. Bell v. Find Tickets, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-00973-JMS-MJD
File Date: Friday, June 19, 2015
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Find Tickets, LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore