WARNING: Getty Images Cracking Down!

Get Started
541

[QUOTE=Sally23;3222575]Simon stanmore said : -
[COLOR=“blue”]Therefore written permission for usage from the copyright holder must be obtained to make use of a photograph legally.

Please supply either case law or statute to support this statement. (not a link to a photographers random blog/site I mean ACTUAL UK LAW)[/COLOR]

Specifically…

“7. Restricted acts
It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.”

For all practical purposes consent of the owner means in writing. UK commercial photographers usually call such a written permission a ‘License to Use’.

[COLOR=“blue”]‘Why steal from Getty?’

Nobody from what I have read on this forum has stolen anything from getty. I did not even know getty existed 3 years ago[/COLOR]

This is irrelevent (to the law). You cannot legally use any photgraph (or image) that you did not take/create yourself without written (or recorded verbal) permission from its copyright holder (usually the creator). It really is this simple. The billions of images on the Web - Unless you have written (or recorded verbal) permission from the owner on the image, or it was taken a very long time ago - You cannot use them legally.

[COLOR=“blue”]If I want a Porsche I can… Etc

Oh how wish getty would take me to court as I can show that I can take exactly the same image with moderate light conditions in 5 seconds. As has been stated before none of the images are ‘quality’ images of famous people etc - in my case they were images of baby clothes.[/COLOR]

Subject matter is irrelevant to copyright law. A photograph of a single white fluffy cloud in a big blue sky is under exactly the same ‘protection’ as a production involving a bevy of glamourous models on a yacht in the Bahamas

Simon

542

It’s also an offence to expose oneself in public, and fortunately, most of us are aware of that. Life is good!

Happy new year!!!

543

For all of you smug photographer guys, who continue to tell us how evil we all are, lets just assume that we are not disputing that copyright law exists. Let’s assume that we admitted that we used the images then let’s for a moment consider the real issue, which is Goliath companies trying to impose extortionate penalties on little guys like us. If what they are doing is legal then it is only by a hairsbreadth.

For those of you who are so fond of quoting the copyright laws let’s quote another from the same source as above, http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p05_copyright_infringement. This is the action they recommend when copyright is infringed.

[COLOR=“Sienna”]"[B]The copyright infringement fact sheet outlines suggested procedure to follow in the event that your work is infringed.

  1. Contact the infringer[/B]
    The first step is to make the infringer aware of your objection and put forward a reasonable settlement and time scale to reach the settlement.

In your letter you should include:

  • The words ‘without prejudice’ at the start of the letter.
  • The name of the work(s) you are objecting to.

[LIST]The reason why this is an infringement, i.e. an unauthorised copy, adaptation etc.
[/LIST]

  • State that you believe this act constitutes an infringement. That your work is protected under law and that this constitutes a breach of your legal rights.
  • State that this is unacceptable and must stop.
  • State what action is required to resolve the dispute, usually you would request the withdrawal of all copies of the work, (and any other encroaching materials).
  • Specify a deadline for your conditions to be met [28 days is the normal period].
  • State that you are seeking legal advice and that the case will be pursued if they do not comply with your request within the time period.

It is normal to simply request the withdrawal of all infringing work as the first course of action, if however you believe that you are entitled to financial remuneration, such as damages or royalties, then contact a solicitor immediately".[/COLOR]

For those of you who say that there can be no question that copyright exists I’ll quote again from the section 97 of the UK Copyright Act …

“Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy”.

Forgetting your personal opinions this clearly illustrates that the statute accepts that there can be situations when people do not know that copyright exists. I would suggest that just such a situation would be when they were given the image or bought it in good faith from another source. Once again I am not a lawyer but I doubt that there is any judge in the UK who would penalise someone in this situation.

The question of the amount of additional damages and/or royalties is to be set by the court in accordance with, “(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, and (b) any benefit accruing to the defendant by reason of the infringement”.

What you see above is the law, not just an opinion. If Getty and Corbis take anyone to court they would have to satisfy the court of the flagrancy of the offence and the benefit accrued. In my case I used a small digital icon to illustrate a link between two pages on my website. There was nothing flagrant about this and no benefit was gained. I cannot see how they would ever be able to satisfy a court otherwise.

Reiterating what was said earlier in the thread this is most probably the reason they do yet appear to have taken court action against anyone. If they do and they lose they can forget about any further extortionate claims.

Can people who have been contacted by Getty please continue to post progress reports and/or their actions and/or outcomes, lest we get entirely bogged down in the copyright issue, which (while useful for background) doesn’t actually help resolve matters for those who have received a Getty ‘invoice’ ?

I agree 100% with SallyM on this. Let’s forget about the morals of copyright infringement and arguments with those who are only here to gloat on other people’s misfortune. Let’s have the facts on the progress of your cases and do not waste time responding to the lectures and jibes from these people who are not involved.

544

For all of you smug photographer guys, who continue to tell us how evil we all are, lets just assume that we are not disputing that copyright law exists. Let’s assume that we admitted that we used the images then let’s for a moment consider the real issue, which is Goliath companies trying to impose extortionate penalties on little guys like us. If what they are doing is legal then it is only by a hairsbreadth.

Sorry if it comes accross as ‘smug’, that’s genuinely not the intention. Moving on…

[COLOR=“blue”]For those of you who say that there can be no question that copyright exists I’ll quote again from the section 97 of the UK Copyright Act …

“Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy”.

Forgetting your personal opinions this clearly illustrates that the statute accepts that there can be situations when people do not know that copyright exists. I would suggest that just such a situation would be when they were given the image or bought it in good faith from another source. Once again I am not a lawyer but I doubt that there is any judge in the UK who would penalise someone in this situation.[/COLOR]

I wouldn’t be surprised that if, for example, the breach of copyright was the result of a freebie CD-Rom that came with a mag you would be OK. You would need to produce the CD and it would have to be free from any notice such as “Permission is NOT granted for this content to be used for commercial purposes.”

[COLOR=“blue”]The question of the amount of additional damages and/or royalties is to be set by the court in accordance with, “(a) the flagrancy of the infringement, and (b) any benefit accruing to the defendant by reason of the infringement”.

What you see above is the law, not just an opinion. If Getty and Corbis take anyone to court they would have to satisfy the court of the flagrancy of the offence and the benefit accrued. In my case I used a small digital icon to illustrate a link between two pages on my website. There was nothing flagrant about this and no benefit was gained. I cannot see how they would ever be able to satisfy a court otherwise. [/COLOR]

The court may take the POV that the benefit acrued to the defendent is the cost they avoided by not licensing the image. AFAIK Getty has not yet begun to use Picscout to find royalty free infringements, just rights managed ones. An example of rights managed pricing for Web use from Getty Images is…

[INDENT]Licence details

Use: Web - Corporate or Promotional Site
Size: Medium - Up to 300x250 pixels
Placement: Home page
Start date: 1 Jan 2007
End date: 1 Jan 2008
Territory: United Kingdom
Industry: Fashion / Textiles
Exclusivity: No Exclusivity

Contact us for exclusivity

Price: £ 1,015.00 GBP [/INDENT]

So that’s approx. $2000 for as ‘typical’ Web use for 12 months… Getty’s ‘demand’ of $1000 from offenders could be considered very soft by the courts.

Reiterating what was said earlier in the thread this is most probably the reason they do yet appear to have taken court action against anyone. If they do and they lose they can forget about any further extortionate claims.

Rights managed stock images are sometimes licensed for $50,000. In light of this ‘extortionate’ is a wild inaccuracy, especially considering the law has been broken.

I agree 100% with SallyM on this. Let’s forget about the morals of copyright infringement and arguments with those who are only here to gloat on other people’s misfortune. Let’s have the facts on the progress of your cases and do not waste time responding to the lectures and jibes from these people who are not involved.

Again, apologies if this comes across as gloats and jibes. I am just responding to your post with some info which might help put this situation in perspective for you

545

The photographers who have been posting need to realize that we see your side very clearly (many of us here are real creatives) - we are sympathetic to the little man - we are only asking you to be.

Getting into the specifics of how and why Getty is quasi entrapping people via their heavy handed tactics is too tiresome but that is what they are doing nonetheless.

I support paying a fair rate for good creative work be it an illustration or picture - just as I too would expect to be fairly compensated if I had been contracted to do some work. At the same time, in light of how little the market will allow for a small to medium sized website the idea of paying 1k an image is really not right and a judge in NY would likely recognize this - Getty might get an award but not the absurd amounts they are indicating. If I am a magazine that has real revenue, is accustomed to sourcing images and can afford a higher rate that is one thing but the nature of the sector/business type does have direct bearing on how much that sector will expect a good or service to be valued at. Where availability is higher goods are cheaper and better.

So if I contract with a photographer to do a small shoot for me I would expect to pay less that 1k for the whole shoot - 3 hours work or so (in Park Slope Brooklyn), not just for one image. Of course if it would be more I would find another photographer who would still be able to do a good job at a lower, reasonable rate - I would not be forced to pay a rate I was totally unaware of, whatever the reason for my ignorance.

If I have to buy an image from a stock site I would balance how much the image will transform the site, if it is supportive or for layout, as to how much I would be willing to pay for it.

Again, being that most small to medium sites would be the ones most likely involved in this discussion here and these sites typically cost a client 5k or less, at 1k the images would have to have some super magic power to actually be worth 1k a piece to the “business” or the web designer.

So on this new day in New York, with our new Governor Eliot, let’s look out for the interests of all not just the wealthy, not just those who can afford to protect their interests through nefarious tactics. I don’t think the NYC Ombudsmen or our new Governor would appreciate how Getty is actively and electively treating small businesses.

546

Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work
As asked countless times before what specific Act or case law states this? You have referred to a blog/web-site not LAW!!!

You accuse Sally of theft.
In all cases a third party has come along and said here is an image and you have the right to use it. In sally’s case she did all she could to check whether it was the right thing to do. She even waited a month before publishing it and yet 3 years later a bunch of Israeli crooks and dodgy photographers come along and try to extort thousands of pounds from a single mother. It truly is sad that you hold the law in contempt in supporting these scamsters.

Digital photos are no different from cars in this regard
Mmm and there is silly old me thinking registration and engine identification plates are there for decoration.

‘Watermarking in-data degrades the image’
How?!!! It is not contained within the visual layer of the pixels. A digital image is a multi-layered composition and what you see is not what you get. Remember we are talking about digital images not film images.

‘You show me an MP3 file on a file sharing sit ethat contains a copyright warning or symbol’http://www.cnetnetworks.com/editorial/copyright.html

Licence details

Use: Web - Corporate or Promotional Site
Size: Medium - Up to 300x250 pixels
Placement: Home page
Start date: 1 Jan 2007
End date: 1 Jan 2008
Territory: China
Industry: Fashion / Textiles
Exclusivity: No Exclusivity

Contact us for exclusivity

Price: £ 15.00 GBP

the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe
and that reason is that the vast majority of produced works remain protected by copyright and you had no evidence to the contrary in this case. The simple absence of a copyright symbol helps you not.

On the contrary the absence of a copyright symbol combined with the evidence of acquiring those images from a third party in good faith supports our cliam. Moreover there are millions of images that fall within the public domain because if you look closely at the law e.g. The Copyright Act 1956 deals with published photographs and photographs taken before 1st June 1957; or s 153 and 154 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 those laws could place any number of images in the public domain.

547

BTW shocked photo i found this in your link http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

[I]The purpose of registration is to ensure that you have proper, independently verifiable, evidence of your work. This ensures that if another party steals your photos you have solid evidence to prove your claim.

Without registration it can be very difficult, and often impossible, to prove your ownership if another person claims the photo belong to them.[/I]

are you able to read that second paragraph or shall i read it for you slowly - it says Without registration it can be very difficult, and often impossible, to prove your ownership if another person claims the photo belong to them

Getty did not register any of the images they alledge i infringed. Thank you Shocked Photo for giving me another arrow for my bow.

548

It wouldn’t be Getty who would need to register the images – it would be the photographer who owns them. Getty is contracted by the photographer to license the images.

549

it has been said that i am a theif

Firstly i have never stolen anything in my life, secondly if i had stolen those images then where are the police? - why have i not been arrested? thirdly since getty and their supporters are in effect saying there is no distinction between the virtual web world and reality then perhaps we should deal with the issue as if it were reality. In the UK if you find an item and ownership cannot be ascertained then the ploice will return it to the finder after a period of about 8 weeks. If you don’t beleive me then telephone a police station.

Also i have spoken to a solicitor who advises me that under the Limitation of Actions Act the plaintiffs must bring a claim within 3 years from when the right of action accrued. This explains why getty are only referring to the last 6 months because THEY KNOW for the vast majority of claims THEY ARE OUT OF TIME:lol:

550

sorry guys i should have said 6 years - not 3 years. (s9. Limitation Act 1980).
This may still help those who published the alledged infringed images over 6 years ago.

551

We’re sliding back into a discussion with the photographers folks. Try to avoid taking the bait and let’s keep on topic by only providing information that can help our cases.

It is worth noting that several of our critics have clearly only joined this forum for the purposes of getting into this discussion. We have to ask ourselves why and also how and why they found their way into this thread in the first place?

Dont bite.

552

Unless you have written (or recorded verbal) permission from the owner on the image, or it was taken a very long time ago - You cannot use them legally.

not entirely accurate. Basically although copyright exists when the image is first created it can and often be lost/changed. There are countless millions of images on the net which fall within the public domain - in other words they are free and available to the public to use and publish as they wish.
You have to understand why the Law demands registration/copyright symbols or some way of indentifying that the image is currently copyrighted. It is because without that requirement any bozo could stick an image on the net with a big declaration saying this is an image i took, its copyright free and anyone can use it. 4 years later he returns with the same image and a copyright notice demanding £2,000 for the license for that image. 8 out of every 10 Defendants cannot find or refer to the original ‘free’ declaration because he has removed all trace of it from the ineternet. Its a simple and effective scam which is why the Law demands some form of copyright identification - although under the system you advocate the innocent housewife should be treated as a theif and forced to hand over $10,000 to the bozo.
So long as you can prove that you had no reason to believe the particular image did have a copyright out of the millions of copyright free images on the internet then you have a defence to a claim for damages. s.97

Even if people fail to convince a copyright tribunal that they were innocent you then have to look at case-law such as Norowzian v Arks (No.1), where photography copyright can only be infringed by photographic copying from the film. i.e. by photographic means
Images have been transferred from a database (getty) to a third party and then on to the defendants using the internet i.e. they were transferred as bitmap files. The copy being created from bitmap pixels not from photographic means. As i have said before, the distinction between a block of bitmap pixels from a ‘film’ image is important.

553

Sorry Booler to be drawn into the troll photographers threads however some of them make good pratice for the type of rubbish that will be thrown at you by gettys lawyers in the extremely unlikely event they ever take someone to the copyright tribunal:-

Shocked photo went at lengths to reprint a copy of a licence from SXU.

What he ommitted was the first paragraph of that license:-

[B]You may use the Image

In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones.
In printed promotional materials, magazines, newspapers, books, brochures, flyers, CD/DVD covers, etc. [/B]

Incidentally Booler i think the issue of county court procedures may only be an academic one if Corbis pursue their claim through the ‘Copyright Tribunal’ which i believe is the correct forum for a claim under the 1988 Act.
For guidance on that tribunal see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891129_en_2.htm#end

554

I am not sure whether or not the Copyright Tribunal applies in this case. What I am sure of is that it is not a simple matter trying to take individuals (like us) to court on this. I would contend that this is probably why I can find no record of any such successful prosecution although I have spent a lot of time searching for this. If it had happened I am sure that (with its implications) it would have been a high profile story on the Internet and quite easy to find.

The case of Corbis versus Templatemonster is one thing but trying to prosecute individuals under the copyright act opens a real can of worms. The act would appear to make it illegal to surf the net. Here’s what it says about infringement of copyright by copying.

17.—(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means . (my emphasis)

If you visit a website with a copyrighted work you download it from the website host and store it in the cache of your PC. Isn’t this storing it by electronic means? If so isn’t this also an infringement?

555

It is worth noting that several of our critics have clearly only joined this forum for the purposes of getting into this discussion. We have to ask ourselves why and also how and why they found their way into this thread in the first place?
Dont bite.

I clocked this thread weeks ago when researching Picscout. at the time I was too busy to get involved. A couple of weeks back I linked to it in a (closed and limited) photographers forum when someone raised a question about Picscout (as part of a larger repsonse). Subsequent to this it has it has been linked to by someone else on an extremely popular open forum. Personally I’m not posting here to wind you all up. I’m posting because you are making mistakes in your understanding of the issue - I think it’s good for both Web designers and photographers for Web designers to be in possession of the facts…

Danny, I don’t have time to respond to every point who made in youir recent posts so I’m just dealing with the most recent…

[COLOR=“Blue”]Unless you have written (or recorded verbal) permission from the owner on the image, or it was taken a very long time ago - You cannot use them legally.

not entirely accurate. Basically although copyright exists when the image is first created it can and often be lost/changed.[/COLOR]

Yes copyright can be changed and that’s why I used the ‘owner’ rather than creator. Copyright can not be ‘lost’ at all. It can be transferred, it can expire, or it can be dedicated to the public domain by its owner … See ‘3. Dedicated Works’ at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html#3 for more info.

There are countless millions of images on the net which fall within the public domain - in other words they are free and available to the public to use and publish as they wish.

“Countless millions” may (or may not) be true but I would put money on that for every single image that if free from copyright on the net there are at least a thousand that are fully copyrighted. That said, who’s resposibilty do you think it is to ensure an image used on a commercial Website without explicit permission from its owner is copyright free?

You have to understand why the Law demands registration/copyright symbols or some way of indentifying that the image is currently copyrighted.

This is false too. Did you glean this ‘fact’ from the Website I linked to (the private enterprise copyright registration company). Fact is at http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy.htm - See particularly the section, ‘Automatic Protection’.

It is because without that requirement any bozo could stick an image on the net with a big declaration saying this is an image i took, its copyright free and anyone can use it. 4 years later he returns with the same image and a copyright notice demanding £2,000 for the license for that image. 8 out of every 10 Defendants cannot find or refer to the original ‘free’ declaration because he has removed all trace of it from the ineternet. Its a simple and effective scam which is why the Law demands some form of copyright identification - although under the system you advocate the innocent housewife should be treated as a theif and forced to hand over $10,000 to the bozo.

False (again). The law does not demand “some form of copyright identification”, it demands proof of copyright ownership. In Getty’s case the photographers will have supplied slides (years ago), scans of of slides (more recently), or TIFF’s rendered from digital raw captures (most recently). In all cases there is an original (slide or raw file) to prove copyright ownership. There is very often signed model release and/or property release documents too.
It is encumbent upon the the user of copyrighted material to to have a copy of the license - A printout or screen grab in the case of your “innocent housewife”.
Are Getty demanding $10,000 from a housewife? Why would a housewife put Getty photo’s on her Website, which would typically exist to display snaps of her kids and holidays?

So long as you can prove that you had no reason to believe the particular image did have a copyright out of the millions of copyright free images on the internet then you have a defence to a claim for damages. s.97

Yes, prove this and you’re A-OK.

Even if people fail to convince a copyright tribunal that they were innocent you then have to look at case-law such as Norowzian v Arks (No.1), where photography copyright can only be infringed by photographic copying from the film. i.e. by photographic means

Norowzian v Arks (No.1) bears no relation to the issue of this thread. The ‘film’ referred to in that case means the short film, not the celluloid.
For the most relevant and up-to-date law concerning copyright of digitalised material read ‘The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003’ which is an amendment of ‘The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’ (the current UK copyright act) … http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm & http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_3.htm#mdiv17

Images have been transferred from a database (getty) to a third party and then on to the defendants using the internet i.e. they were transferred as bitmap files. The copy being created from bitmap pixels not from photographic means. As i have said before, the distinction between a block of bitmap pixels from a ‘film’ image is important.

Again, ‘film’ in Norowzian v Arks did not refer to the celluloid. The distinction between a block of pitmap pixels and a ‘film’ image is non-existent: From ‘The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’…
““photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;”
Note how the law distinguishes ‘film’ (moving image) from ‘photograph’ (still), thereby making Norowzian v Arks irrelevent.
Relevent to this thread from ‘The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’ is…
17.—(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
" (2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means."

And browser cache is covered by ‘The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003’…

" 28A Making of temporary copies
1A. The rights conferred by Part 2 are not infringed by the making of a temporary copy of a recording of a performance which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -
(a) a transmission of the recording in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or
(b) a lawful use of the recording;
and which has no independent economic significance.".

556

Simon take a look at this blog

http://images-public-free.blogspot.com/

I posted it today and already my stats show at least 10 users have downloaded some of the images.

In 26 weeks time time I could remove that blog. By then (assuming 100 downloads per week) a conservative estimate would be 2600 users.

In 3 years time I re-instate the blog but this time declaring that the image cost is £2000 each. I could use my tracking software to locate some of the 2600 sites using it. I send them all demands for £5,000.
Some will have kept a screenshot of the original blog, maybe some would have checked out my credentials however I can guarantee that at least 2000 poor suckers will have no proof of where or how they got those images particulary after a time span of 3 years.

Now do you see the scam!!!

What’s better is according to your interpretation of the law all I need do is prove ownership of the images. Easy I have witnesses, records of when, where, what camera, witnesses etc. etc

That is why we have the defence of s.97 so as to stop easy scams like this.

557

jesus i’ve just realised that if i lose against getty then i stand to make £10,000,000 out of my blog. (ok this forum thread could go against me so i will create a web-site instead ‘mysite.Images.com’ I could publish hundreds of reasonably good images and then in 3 years time cut a deal with an Isreali hacker to fish out ‘infringers’)

mmmm damn and curse that s.97:-)

558

Great blog Danny. Only trouble is you will probably find that Getty have mysteriously acquired those images in 3 years time although its nice to see you have a concealed id on each image - your not the only code freak here:-)

There are Millions of public domain images on the net not to mention millions upon millions of images produced from countries which are not signed up to international copyright treaties. (and they represent two thirds of the worlds population)

Leaving aside www.sxc.hu/ or http://flickr.com/ or http://pdphoto.org/ or http://www.openphoto.net/ or http://www.ourmedia.org/images or http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/ Looking for 2 seconds on the net i found this web-site offerring thousands of image free pics:-

http://freestockphotos.com/

(Pleased to note that one of gettys more intelligent supporters at last acknowledges there is a difference between film/videos and images.)

So with millions upon millions of FREE images on the net which are within the public domain how will a tribunal ever reach the verdict that you should have ‘reason to believe’ an unmarked image was copyrighted!!!
Movies, MP3’s, sound recordings etc all make it pretty clear who the author is - e.g. you can hear their (or their actors/singers) voices for christs sake! - whereas images do Not (unless they are of elvis etc - which none of ours are).

Finally to the troll ‘infringed’ - remember that video you bought 4 years ago well now the shop-keepers at your door - hes accusing you of stealing it from his shop - still got the receipt??

559

Danny, Section 97 is not there to legislate against the scam you describe. There are specific laws to cover that.

A UK precedent illustrating Section 97 in action is Microsoft v Plato Technology: See page 6 of http://www.tifac.org.in/do/pfc/pub/octbul.pdf

In particular,

“the court held that it should be incumbent on the honest trader to check that the products he buys are genuine”

Which is one of the points I’ve been trying to explain to you. The court in this case recognised that the defendant had not wilfully infringed copyright, even so they found them guilty of copyright infringement. The court ordered a “narrow relief” amongst other remedies.

Getty are asking for $1000 (approx. £525) per infringement. In an earlier post I explained how this might be easily be considered ‘narrow relief’ in a UK court of law in light of their standard price structure…

[INDENT][COLOR=“Blue”]Licence details

Use: Web - Corporate or Promotional Site
Size: Medium - Up to 300x250 pixels
Placement: Home page
Start date: 1 Jan 2007
End date: 1 Jan 2008
Territory: United Kingdom
Industry: Fashion / Textiles
Exclusivity: No Exclusivity

Contact us for exclusivity

Price: £ 1,015.00 GBP[/COLOR][/INDENT]

560

Danny, please remove the image of the drummer or make a as clear as day that this image cannot legally be used for commercial purposes (unless you have a signed model release), otherwise people using that image commercially could end up being sued.