Credit: Marvix Photo

First, the facts. Florida-based Mavrix Photo filed a complaint in LA this week that claims BuzzFeed deliberately scraped the celebrity images as part of an effort to drive traffic to the site. It cited nine photos, including Perry on a rooftop (see right) and Griffin dancing topless (NSFW, obviously).

On its face, the case seems straightforward enough: even if celebrity photos are inane, people want to see them and photographers have a right earn a living by snapping them. Why should BuzzFeed or anyone else use them for free?

But it’s not that simple. That’s because Mavrix appears to be in the business of copyright trolling — scouring the internet for unauthorized use of its images and threatening anyone who uses them with million dollar lawsuits. This practice has recently degenerated into lawyers recruiting other lawyers to hunt down a hit list of alleged infringers with a promise to share the bounty.

The legal dilemma is a result of the very big stick that the law gives to copyright owners — the right to seek damages of up to $150,000 for each single infringement. This penalty has its place as a nuclear option of sorts to stop or deter serial infringers. Unfortunately, some image owners are brandishing the nuclear option against everyone — from small blogs to careless interns (who may have been responsible for the BuzzFeed shots)  – without taking any account of the actual harm done by the copyright infringement. Instead of a simple request to take the image down (which most people would comply with), we get a legal train wreck.

In age when images are everywhere (Tumblr, Pinterest, BuzzFeed, an so on), the $150,000 nuclear option seems impractical and unfair except in the most egregious cases. A better option would be for Congress to consider crafting some type of small claims court for copyright with graduated penalties for repeat offenders.

Buzzfeed stated it’s looking into the lawsuit but declined to comment further. You can read the complaint and see the offending pictures for yourself below:

Mavrix v BuzzFeed
(Image by Yuri Arcurs via Shutterstock)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Pinterest reawakens Napster-style debate over copyright
• SOPA, OPEN and the fight for the Internet
• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013

That said, I do feel kinda bad for Katy Perry today, as her appearance on an upcoming Sesame Street episode was cut by the show, allegedly because of the level of cleavage on display.

I say this because like any well-brought-up American, I have very fond memories of watching Sesame Street as a kid, and if I were a famous person and I had the opportunity to be on the show, you’re darn right I’d take it. And if I were subsequently rejected by PBS and the Children’s Television Workshop? You’re darn right I’d be miserable.

Perry has posted the cut scene on her YouTube channel, where it’s received almost a million views in just the past day. You know what? Perhaps we’re all better off that our children aren’t watching this. Not because of the cleavage, not because it’s a little weird that Katy Perry is practically assaulting Elmo in a desperate bid to have him to “play dress-up” with her. No, what matters is this: This song sounds dangerously catchy to me.

Related GigaOm Pro Content (subscription required):

The Dos and Don’ts of Social Media Marketing

Why Viacom’s Fight With YouTube Threatens Web Innovation

Can Online Video Show Us the Future of Newspapers?