Sal, I emailed him to ask for more details but he has not yet responded. If he does I will of course post the result.
I reviewed my detailed web traffic logs and just confirmed that picscout scoured my website in mid December 2006. A week or so later I received my first set of documents w/ the letter of demand from them.
It shows that they hit my site twice in Dec. No other months show their name. This is what shows up on my log: “http://www.picscout.com/Reports/Report.aspx”. I cannot pinpoint an IP for them though.
Does anyone know if picscout will scan a website as well as it’s external links to other websites?
[FONT=“Arial Black”][SIZE=“2”][SIZE=“3”][COLOR=“Red”]Join new Getty discussion here: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gettycrackdown[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
.
To quote Yet Another - “and remember - all it takes is one of us to win a court case - and your employer will lose all of them.”
This is not true. To date, the RIAA has sued over 10,000 people for copyright infringement and each case is unique.
I feel Infringer666 is right. The fact that Getty and Corbis have stopped communicating with us is because they are preparing their paperwork.
Ladies and gents, start preparing your defences because it looks like we are going to have to fight in court. By the way, I’m going to ask for a jury trial. I’m not having a biased judge decide on this.
Guys,
So sorry but way to many pages to read and find the answer here.
What is the bottom line. I am a web design / webmaster. A local photographer who took photos for my client then burned them to dvd, gave them to the client in turn client giving to me to crop and put on their web site I builit for them. Photographer is seeking payment for his work and may hold me liable…
Photographer emails me and says “I am the copyright holder and have not licensed the images for any usage at this time pending completion of the transaction. If after xx the transaction is “not” complete then I will request that you remove the images from the site within five days or I will consider actions that focus on your company’s unauthorized usage of my copyrighted images.”
When I initially put the images I had no idea if they were paid for or not of course., After reading about Getty, Getty emails the domain name owner and tells them to pay which I mentioned to this photographer, they don’t send a notice to the webmaster for an invoice. He says legally I am the one who put the images up so he can come after me. I told him it’s the clients website and domain and the client owns that and it’s the clients responsibility to remove those items.
What would you say or do if you were in the middle, yes I know take the images down but what I mean is how to handle this with my client as I am not going to jepordize my relationship as I have recurring income with them and also legally want to do the right thing too…
Guess I need to add a clause in my contract that if a client sends me content or images they must hold the license to that and if I am contacted that they are not the licensed owner then I have the right to remove that item. Of course if I am not the webmaster anymore I would say it’s reasonable that I am not legally responsible and cannot remove those items anyway.
cmec123 wrote:
"What would you say or do if you were in the middle, yes I know take the images down but what I mean is how to handle this with my client as I am not going to jepordize my relationship as I have recurring income with them and also legally want to do the right thing too…
Guess I need to add a clause in my contract that if a client sends me content or images they must hold the license to that and if I am contacted that they are not the licensed owner then I have the right to remove that item. Of course if I am not the webmaster anymore I would say it’s reasonable that I am not legally responsible and cannot remove those items anyway."
cmec123,
Sounds like the tog is having a hard time getting paid or even reaching agreement with the client. If tog’s paperwork is together, there will be a clause in the invoice to the effect: “No usage rights are transfered until fees are paid in full.”
If your paperwork is together with your client, your T&Cs will have a clause saying something like: “You warrant that all materials provided by you have been properly licensed, that use by my firm in carrying out our assignment does not infringe the rights of third parties.”
It appears your client jumped the gun, and the tog is leaning on you in hopes of forcing a settlement. It seems that the extent of your responsibility would be to notify the client of the contact and asking for instructions.
This might be your position:
"I have been contacted by ____, threatening legal action over use of _______. I must remind you that it is your responsibility to insure that materials provided for use by me are properly licensed for the purpose. (Quote T&C if applicable.)
“Please advise me. I should point out that the images have been on your site since mm/dd/yy, and are, technically ‘Infringed’ until settlement is made with the Copyright owner or agent. Taking them offline won’t alter this. Should I take them down or await advice of settlement?”
If your present T&Cs don’t fully immunize you, you might include something like: “I cannot accept responsibility for the actions or omissions of others.”
The tog has no meaningful quarrel with you as a third party service provider. (Had you provided the images, you’d be on the hook, but since you didn’t, you’re in the clear, mho.)
Tog, like many at this list, is making it up as they go along, with no competent legal advice. When and if they retain a real IP lawyer it will be to make formal demand of your client, just like Getty’s or Corbis’: “Pay us (normal fee x 3 or so) now, (and make the use legal) or pay us more later.”*
If and when tog gets that far and still can’t get settlement, the next step is a lawyer’s letterhead advising of intent to file suit unless settlement is made; generally including the request for the contact info for “Process of Service”.
You might be included in this round, at which point you might need a lawyer’s (one hour) letter to establish your third party innocence defense. In the USA, a valid Innocence Defense would have the effect of capping any damages at a few hundred bucks; meaning effectively that any settlement from you can’t possibly cover the costs of winning.
You’d only be in on this as window-dressing/tree-shaking, if at all, and probably wouldn’t last into the actual suit filing, if any. Many matters are settled at this point, unless a profit driven lawyer is calling the shots, and/or there’s a six figure settlement at issue.
Actual filing escalates everybody’s legal costs exponentially. Only rarely are there facts in dispute which actually reach trial. Many matters are settled between lawyers (overseen by a judge) just before a trial date is reached.**
cmec, I don’t think you want to take any action beyond (written formal letter, not email) informing your client of the situation and refusing any responsibility or liability, politely as you can. I don’t think ‘an abundance of caution’ requires anything more.
If you were to act by taking the images down without client’s written instruction it might be interpreted as an admission and acceptance of complicity & responsibility.
Again, I’m only licensed for Latrine Law. Don’t accept anything I say as other than fragmentary, imperfect understanding. I’ve been through some of this many times as a plaintiff, but other aspects are pure heresay and conjecture. Check everything with a proper solicitor, preferably one without a profit incentive to raise unrealistic expectations…
- BTW, C&D (Cease and Desist) letters/orders are very seldom used in Infringement Chasing. In order to file one of these, the Plaintiff needs put up a substantial Cash Bond, to cover the lost income and costs of compliance in the event Defendant wins. (My fragmentary understanding).
** Tristana, et al, Several lawyers quoted here have ‘ball-parked’ the cost of defending an IP suit as US$30k. I doubt they included the expense of actually ‘Going to Trial’. A good question for that law firm who several here apparently have retained. A Jury Trial in any of these cases would be Day Dreaming; fodder for a reality TV show, ‘Bambi vs. Godzilla’?
BTW, T: Some attorney advised you to delete a slew of posts, made it into the Guardian article, et al. Some of the deleted posts were quoted elsewhere and no doubt exist in the big DB in the sky.
Weren’t the deletions kind of like High Lighting potentially actionable speech? Does your counsel also advise you that the archives of this site are probably subject to subpoena, or accessible through other archives? Does the same firm lead you to expect a Jury Trial? Oh dear, what to wear…
All should be very careful whose advise to act on, myself included.
Pardon for straying from the thread. Good luck, cmec!
HTH!
Infringed666, your comment about what to wear to my Bamby jury trial is just so funny!!!
BTW: I really regret having deleted my comments. I also regret having removed the photograph from the server and removing the site from the wayback machine.
Are you a freelancer webmaster?
If so, then you completed the project/contract. It’s the clients website, not yours. Even if you were employed w/ the client f/t, it’s STILL the clients website, not yours.
The only way the photography could come after you instead of the client, is if they went to court.
The images should be taken down from the website. That goes without saying if they were not paid for.
[FONT=“Arial Black”][SIZE=“2”][SIZE=“3”][COLOR=“Red”]Join new Getty discussion here: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gettycrackdown[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
.
For those of you that are angry about this. Be sure to always do your photographic image research via a Google or Yahoo search. Be sure to click on the ad to go to Getty for your research. This costs Getty money and the money goes to Google and Yahoo who are doing their own copyright fights. Costing businesses money ensures change!
Over on the Corbis thread we are looking at letter reference numbers to try to get a handle on the extent of this problem. If you have had a Corbis letter from B&M have a look.
In our situation, the things are getting in favour of corbis i.e. we said client to go ahead and pay to corbis for their demand and we will reimburse the money to him. In our situation the image was used on client site unknowingly that it was pirated by ultravertex.com from which we had bought the license. Although corbis won case against this ghost company and settled with templatemonster and others, how do end-user like us protected? The reason we wanted our client to pay is to avoid any legal proceeding which we may win but at the cost of precious time and too much of lawyer fees. The problem is they sue to client which is in UK.
This should probably have been posted on the Corbis thread. Let’s keep the comments on the right track.
i am sorry but all three previous post by me related to this was posted on this thread. thank you for pointing me to corbis thread. for your kind info i am not a regular sitepoint visitor i came to know about this forum from web search.
thank you.
You should contact Ultravertex and claim the money from them as they supplied you with a stolen image under false pretenses.
[edit]Ah, you can’t, they’ve gone. Did you get it direct from them or via Template Monster?
The UK Copyright, Patents and Designs Act 1988 states the following
Section 98.—(1) [B]If in proceedings for infringement of copyright in respect of which a licence is available [/B]as of right under section 144 (powers exercisable in consequence of report of Monopolies and Mergers Commission) the defendant undertakes to take a licence on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, settled by the Copyright Tribunal under that section—
(a) no injunction shall be granted against him,
(b) no order for delivery up shall be made under section 99, and
(c) the amount recoverable against him by way of damages or on an account of profits shall not exceed double the amount which would have been payable by him as licensee if such a licence on those terms had been granted before the earliest infringement.
Thanks Tristana. Booler’s pointing to correct thread helped me and the client used services of limeone.
StuckRUs, yes they are ghost company. The image downloaded was under direct subscription of ultravertex.com, template monster refered as they were providing ultravertex free subscriptions as a bundle with their templates.
If you live in the UK and have received a letter/email/telephone call from Getty asking for payment for copyright infringement:
DO:
- Complain to Trading Standards immediately stating that you have received a very threatening demand for money and believe it to be an illegal scam. If you are any doubt that this is a scam, then take my word, IT IS!
- If the invoice is charging VAT and has a) A US address and/or b) No VAT number, then report them to UK Customs and Excise. This is highly illegal.
- Remove your site from the Waybackmachine. Both Getty and Picsout use this to get information. Inform the Waybackmachine that you have removed your site and tell them why - they frown on companies like Getty abusing their free resource.
- Ignore all posts from photographers on this forum. They have no advice to offer you.
DONT:
- Contact Getty in any way. Ignore all correspondence. If you have already spoken to them, and have not done so already, dispute the invoice and deny all responsibility.
- Under no circumstances pay them any money. If you have already paid them, report them to the trading standards and write to them stating that if they don’t refund your money you will report them to the police.
- Speak to a solicitor. In my experience (like most others on this forum) is that advice is bad, conflicting and generally designed to maximise their own income rather than resolve your issue.
In the [very] unlikely event that Getty do take you to court - fight them! Legally, they do not have a leg to stand on!
Good post!
I am not a lawyer but this looks like good advice to me.
If you are any doubt that this is a scam, then take my word, IT IS!
Would you care to explain why anyone should take your word for it? As a new poster you could be the guy who works down the chip shop and swears he’s Elvis for all we know.
StuckRUs wrote:
"Quote:
If you are any doubt that this is a scam, then take my word, IT IS!
Would you care to explain why anyone should take your word for it? As a new poster you could be the guy who works down the chip shop and swears he’s Elvis for all we know."
StuckRUs,
I think you hit the nail on the head! Everlast is Elvis!
He didn’t really die of an overdose, just went into hiding, took an anonymous identity and new career (in my specialty): Latrine Law.
Elvis, from your speed read of all 758 posts, and exalted expertise, pray tell:
If I were to publish some actionable libel against a large corporation on a list such as this one, and were invited to leave that list by the owners, what should I do?
A) Crawl back in my hole and replenish my legal fund against future need?
B) Get back to work on that Primary School Diploma thing?
C) Set up a new anonymous ID and refresh the list’s supply of misinformation and malicious speech?
Should I worry that the owners could be subpoenaed and compelled to disclose the actual identity of ‘anonymous’ members?
How much money should I reasonably expect the site owners to spend in defense of my anonymity?
Why are you so down on photographers? Without their profession, you’d have to create your own photos, and this site wouldn’t even exist!
Just a thought, but if you were to go public with your true ID, you’d have a hell of an infringement case against the Elvis Impersonation industry!
Please everyone, do not respond to him. If you ignore him he will go away, which is the best thing that can happen because he has nothing to contribute to this thread.
666 why don’t you go and take a few pictures and leave us to it?