They used a photograph of mine without permission.

The photograph was physically watermarked, had a watermark embedded in it which they removed.

They asked me for permission to use it and when they didn't receive permission they just used it anyway.

They then claim they knew nothing about copyright law in their defence!

Their defence denies I am the photographer, although they previously admitted it, and their defence even insults my work...

actually the WP correspondence directly contradicts almost the entirety of their defence.

Section 1 of the defence is completely incorrect.

Section 2 is.

Section 3 is and even misquotes me, whilst claiming "the correspondence will be filed with the court in due course".

Section 4 is legally wrong (but not contradicted by their previous correspondence, it's just stupid legal work).

Section 5 implies that I am dishonest and insults my work.

Section 6 is completely incorrect.

Section 1, 2, 3 and 6 are proven wrong by their own correspondence.

This is a small claim, value less than £500.

I can't believe they are defending it like this.

The nub of the issue, from a copyright point of view is that their behaviour is the sort of thing you see in the Banier Judgment.

The two cases are directly applicable.

http://www.epuk.org/file_download/37/EPUK

I've never seen anyone defend a case before like this, when their wrongdoing has been so obvious, nor just flat out lie about it and when they get caught lying continue to lie.

I'm totally bemused at how they can refer to the correspondence and say it'll be filed, and then claim that I can't refer to it when they realised they made a mistake.

I know the law, but the legal procedures that lawyers can throw around I do not know.

If you are relying and referring to it within your statement of claim...then you will have to disclose it again at standard disclosure.

 

Regards

 

Andy

I thought that any document referred to in the statement of case had to be attached to it.

31.14

(1) A party may inspect a document mentioned in –

(a) a statement of case;

...

31.15 Where a party has a right to inspect a document–

(a) that party must give the party who disclosed the document written notice of his wish to inspect it;

(b) the party who disclosed the document must permit inspection not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the notice; and

© that party may request a copy of the document and, if he also undertakes to pay reasonable copying costs, the party who disclosed the document must supply him with a copy not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the request.

I thought that any document referred to in the statement of case had to be attached to it.

Depends how you initiated the claim...if through MCOL

The procedure only allows a claimant to insert details of the claim and does now allow for the attachment of any enclosures.

Paragraph 5.2a of Practice Direction 7 E specifically states "The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using MCOL unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction.

Andy

The particulars of claim were not served separately. There was a reply given to their defence. All I can find is a bunch of confusing and contrary things in the CPR. Very frustrating. This one says you don't need to, this one says you do, this one says you don't if you already have, this one says it doesn't apply to the small claims track, etc etc. I'll just send it.