In August 2014, plaintiff, who sold his photographic work online, sued defendants for copyright infringement. Specifically, the owner of the online photos alleged that the defendants had obtained those photos without the owner's consent, and placed one of the photographs on a commercial Internet website operated by the defendants. After the defendants ignored a letter by the plaintiff demanding that the online photos be taken down, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking $30,000 in damages. The owner also alleged that the defendants' conduct constituted a willful violation of his copyrights. The court considered the following factors in determining whether a damages remedy existed: the infringer's state of mind; the expenses saved by the infringer; the revenue lost by the copyright holder; the deterrent effect on the infringer and third parties; the infringer's cooperation in the case; and the attitude and conduct of the parties. Based on the allegations stated above, do you believe that these factors merit a damages reward of $30,000? In whose favor do you believe the court ruled? Explain your reasoning. Oppenheimer v. Holt, No. 1:14-CV-000208-MR, 2015 WL 2062189 (W.D.N.C. May 4, 2015).