[lxmorj]

Wouldn't it be standard policy to, say, use Google's reverse image search to see who owns the image? I just did and it's pretty damn clearly his. Not bothering to check a two-second site with 99% results sounds pretty willful to me.

[sounds]

I agree.

Just ask yourself if National Geographic would let you dictate terms of a settlement because you claimed "someone sold [me] a license for art"?

If National Geographic doesn't like copyright law, they should come out publicly against it, not threaten a drawn-out lawsuit against the artist. On the other hand, now that they're obviously caught violating it, it's time to pay up.

Anything else is neither fair nor reasonable. Trying to get back to the simple licensing the artist offers _law-abiding_ licensees is not fair or reasonable.

National Geographic is welcome to go and pursue damages against their "someone" who sold it to them.

[lxmorj]

I think if they produced evidence that some other person had purported to sell them the art the guy would be much less warranted, but they haven't so it's likely that didn't happen.