united-states copyright canada
Question about US law being sued in Canada
<p>Suppose a Canadian subscription website is created providing valuable information on certain properties of a product to consumers.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, a mistake was made where some images on the website were taken from an online source that broke copyright laws in US.  These images were quickly taken down to settle this problem.  However, the opposition in question continued to try and sue for more, claiming that the information on these properties were taken from them (which is apparently incorrect and lacks proof), but they continue to drag this on in an assumed attempt to try and make the defendant basically spend all their money fighting this off before it gets before a judge.</p>
<p><strong>My questions is</strong>: to what end can something like this continue to be dragged out?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>These images were quickly taken down to settle this problem.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It <em>doesn't</em> settle the problem, at least under US law, because a former infringer may still owe statutory damages under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17 USC 504</a> (and I imagine under some analogous Canadian law). Ceasing the infringement does not extinguish the plaintiff's right to those damages, although it may limit the size of the damages.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>However, the opposition in question continued to try and sue for more, claiming that the information on these properties were taken from them (which is apparently incorrect and lacks proof)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Information, in and of itself, is not subject to copyright protection in just about any jurisdiction in the world (see for example <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17 USC 102(b)</a>). It has been suggested in the comments of another answer that this may nevertheless be a trade secrets violation, but that would only be the case if the information had been non-public <em>and</em> the site appropriated the information from an unpublished source belonging to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff deliberately caused this information to be published on their own website, then trade secret law certainly does not apply to it.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, if the site copied literal text or images from the plaintiff's website, or closely paraphrased it, that is an infringement of copyright. Copyright protects the creative elements of the text, even where the text is serving a primarily utilitarian or functional purpose.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>but they continue to drag this on in an assumed attempt to try and make the defendant basically spend all their money fighting this off before it gets before a judge.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is unclear what you mean by this. The normal process is for the plaintiff to send the defendant some sort of written demand, the defendant either complies or they don't, and then the plaintiff either files a lawsuit or they don't. If the plaintiff never files a lawsuit, the defendant is under no obligation to continue interacting with the plaintiff, and can simply wash their hands of the matter. Depending on the circumstances, this may or may not be wise, as settling is often more cost-effective than going to court. Ignoring the plaintiff increases the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed. But if there is no lawsuit, then there is nothing to &quot;fight off&quot; in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>the opposition in question continued to try and sue for more, claiming false accusation that information on these properties were taken from them (which is incorrect and has no proof)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It well may not have been taken by you directly. But that doesn't change the fact that the copyright law has <em>been</em> violated by you too — intentionally or not.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>what end can something ... like this continue?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To either a settlement, or a court ruling. You have a choice: agree to pay them a sum now, or stay stubborn and risk bleeding out of money defending yourself in court.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Its really obvious this case is just to make the defendant bleed out all their money until they just go bankrupt</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not obvious at all. Rather, it would be reasonable to assume that the plaintiff <em>doesn't</em> want you to go bankrupt; rather, they want you to be able to pay them.</p>
