'Antagonistic'

Whilst I'm not privvy to the full 'ins and outs' of this case, what I have read so far seems to weigh very heavily in favour of Mr.Morel. What on earth do they mean by 'Antagonistic assertion of rights' ? Sounds like lawyers creating extra money from nothing. What's new there. The guy either gave consent or they stole the pictures without consent. Large corporations and lawyers seem to live in a parallel universe to the rest of us. They deserve nothing but contempt. We, as sole photographers should also question our integrity in dealing with any organisation that acts in such a contemptible way. Yes, we all have bills to pay but photography, for me at least, is a passion and other income streams should be explored, however mundane, to ensure that our work stays true. I'm no 'Citizen Smith' but there comes a time when you have to stop feeding the beast that controls you. Look how the picture libraries have operated over the last 10+ years. Sure, it was just them doing business but we should seriously question our own ethos. Jobbing photographers or creative visionaries? Good luck Morel, stuff AFP and any other organisation that believes it is our saviour. Let's stop being media whores for those that think they know how to tease us.
Rant over, answers on a postcard please....

Photographer is Right: Agencies Stole His Work

This is an open and shut case. He shot the stuff, he owns copyright. The agency defendants violated copyright for profit. Incidentally, it doesn't matter if the agencies stole it directly from him, or through an intermediary; this is still plain copyright piracy. The agencies' "defense" is b.s., and clearly b.s. to anyone with copyright expertise. If the court has integrity it will nuke the agencies for their theft, which will also send a warning message to other would-be thieves-for-profit.