Title is somewhat misleading. It's not for anything video-related. It's for using a (probably free) photo of actress Cuca Escribano without permission.
Title is somewhat misleading. It's not for anything video-related. It's for using a (probably free) photo of actress Cuca Escribano without permission.
So someone submitted a copyrighted image to a 3rd-party user-created database and Plex ingested the image.
Seems like the claimant has a legitimate case but it's strange that they didn't sue the people actually providing the image. Not enough money in it, probably.
It’s also odd that they wouldn’t start with a simple takedown notice or Cease & Desist notice. Courts don’t tend to look kindly upon frivolous lawsuits when it’s clear that the filing party didn’t try to resolve things out of court first. Because it ties up the system when courts could be focused on bigger or more complicated issues. Judges don’t appreciate feeling like their time is being wasted.
Well it sounds like they took it down immediately so it was "resolved" but I guess that doesn't undo the lost revenue.
From what I know, if they complied immediately, the plaintiff doesn't really have a case
Its just an api… lol :(