Comments on "They stole an image of my son and just had to pay $4000"

After reading this blog, I had mixed feelings about the outcome of the case.  It is understandable that the person wanted compensation for the image used in the magazine and under the laws deserved compensation because nobody asked for his permission to use the image.  However, if only to play devil's advocate, the image was put up onto he internet, which is public domain.  The internet is there for everyone to use, so was it right thaT the company was sued for $4000 Because they took an image off of a public place.  Furthermore, it is very doubtful that the picture was trademarked, copyrighted, or had any other legal bindings that strictly prevented its use.  Although I agree in the outcome of the case, if someone is going to lose $4000 dollars, it should be obvious that the image cannot be copied.  Not everyone is familiar with copyright laws, so make it easy for them to know.  The father deserved the money, there is no doubt legally, but laws should be made clear to help prevent similar cases.