Help - breach of copyright?
Discussion
Sorry mate, I didnt realise you had your own thread running...
This might shed some light, but the stolen images the designer I employed for a web design job were "Rights managed" images. Many companies (biguns, like microslop, etc) are happy to pay £400 per year to use an image, regardless of its size.
I couldnt contest the demands for two reasons.
1) The £7k getty were after, they wanted from my client, who they invoiced. Not me. My client rang me up and he was pretty pissed off, to put it mildly!!
I told him to calm down, and that as a client, I recognised that the "problem" was not his, but in fact mine, and told him that I would sort it out for him and make it go away. Chap calmed down, which left me to get on to Getty.
2) I also couldnt contest the issue, not just because it was my client they were after (whose website we designed) because if HE lost his case, which he shouldnt have had the stress of dealing with, id have not only his legal costs to pay, but Id have an even more pissed off client. Chap was a professional "hired muscle" shady character, body guard, private investigator type. I was NOT about to leave him with baliffs closing for £7k + legal costs
- I could have taken a gamble, tried my luck, but didnt feel it fair that a paying client be subject to having to fight a case which was based on actions that were not his, as a client I looked after him and kept my pride.
So anyway, having decided in the blink of an eye to negotiate with Getty VS hoping the problem would go away, I got down to the negotiating of the actual price to pay. They figured I owed them several hundred pounds, PER image, PER year(!) for 4 years, PLUS vat = £7k. That is how "rights managed" sometimes works. Does that shed any light? I doubt microsoft would license an image for Vista on a "per year" basis, £1700 sounds like the kind of sum they might pay for exclusive ownership outright, from an outfit like getty. Id guess?
I didnt have a leg to stand on as the designer who built the site had no formal contract with me, I couldnt prove he chose the images, and also failed in trying to get a contract drawn up 4 years later. What he didnt find out is that I footed a £4k bill. If he gets caught again, hopefully he'll learn the hard way.
This might shed some light, but the stolen images the designer I employed for a web design job were "Rights managed" images. Many companies (biguns, like microslop, etc) are happy to pay £400 per year to use an image, regardless of its size.
I couldnt contest the demands for two reasons.
1) The £7k getty were after, they wanted from my client, who they invoiced. Not me. My client rang me up and he was pretty pissed off, to put it mildly!!
I told him to calm down, and that as a client, I recognised that the "problem" was not his, but in fact mine, and told him that I would sort it out for him and make it go away. Chap calmed down, which left me to get on to Getty.2) I also couldnt contest the issue, not just because it was my client they were after (whose website we designed) because if HE lost his case, which he shouldnt have had the stress of dealing with, id have not only his legal costs to pay, but Id have an even more pissed off client. Chap was a professional "hired muscle" shady character, body guard, private investigator type. I was NOT about to leave him with baliffs closing for £7k + legal costs
- I could have taken a gamble, tried my luck, but didnt feel it fair that a paying client be subject to having to fight a case which was based on actions that were not his, as a client I looked after him and kept my pride.So anyway, having decided in the blink of an eye to negotiate with Getty VS hoping the problem would go away, I got down to the negotiating of the actual price to pay. They figured I owed them several hundred pounds, PER image, PER year(!) for 4 years, PLUS vat = £7k. That is how "rights managed" sometimes works. Does that shed any light? I doubt microsoft would license an image for Vista on a "per year" basis, £1700 sounds like the kind of sum they might pay for exclusive ownership outright, from an outfit like getty. Id guess?
I didnt have a leg to stand on as the designer who built the site had no formal contract with me, I couldnt prove he chose the images, and also failed in trying to get a contract drawn up 4 years later. What he didnt find out is that I footed a £4k bill. If he gets caught again, hopefully he'll learn the hard way.
- Getty had UK offices, billed in £UK sterling, they wouldnt have had to cross the pond to begin legal proceedings.
- The letter I got was also poor quality, a terrible barely recognizable fax emailed over.
- At this level, you could probably expect the prosecutor to be as well briefed as any prosecutor possibly could be, who will likely have an answer to any claim you could possibly make, in fact he probably does little more than go from case to case to case, all very much the same thing. And has probably become quite good at winning.
Just found this below on this forum: http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3...
I think this may solve things. The thread is huge - not one person in court though...
Just an update - My UK client has not heard anything further from Getty after they sent them a recorded letter stating:
Dear Sirs
Ref: Case No. XXXXXXX - Date
We have received an invoice for £XXXXXX for image
reproduction - after taking professional advice we strongly dispute
this invoice for the following reasons:
1. The images mentioned are not being displayed on our current website
2. We have not received any communication from you regarding this
matter other than your invoice, which is against the DMCA (DMCA 1998
Section 512).
3. We have no idea where they came from (a website designer many
years ago) and were unaware they were not free to use
4. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) states:
"97.—(1) 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."
5. Finally:
"It is an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice
Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to
harass of debtors with a view to obtaining payment including the
issue of letters which convey a threat or false information with
intent to cause distress or anxiety."
We therefore fail to acknowledge your letter or the invoice as legal
or lawful.
If necessary we will contact the Dept of Trade and Industry, Office
of Fair Trading, Camden Trading Standards, Watchdog and anyone else
who will listen if we hear from you again.
Yours faithfully
etc
strangely a month after they got their letter I also got one - I had used an image (and purchased license) for a clients website - once launched I featured a screenshot of the homepage which had the image (fairly large) within it plus a detail of the screenshot with the image in it on my portfolio page.
I pointed out same points above as my client and I have had an email stating my reason has been accepted and no further action will be taken.
I think this may solve things. The thread is huge - not one person in court though...
Just an update - My UK client has not heard anything further from Getty after they sent them a recorded letter stating:
Dear Sirs
Ref: Case No. XXXXXXX - Date
We have received an invoice for £XXXXXX for image
reproduction - after taking professional advice we strongly dispute
this invoice for the following reasons:
1. The images mentioned are not being displayed on our current website
2. We have not received any communication from you regarding this
matter other than your invoice, which is against the DMCA (DMCA 1998
Section 512).
3. We have no idea where they came from (a website designer many
years ago) and were unaware they were not free to use
4. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) states:
"97.—(1) 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."
5. Finally:
"It is an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice
Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to
harass of debtors with a view to obtaining payment including the
issue of letters which convey a threat or false information with
intent to cause distress or anxiety."
We therefore fail to acknowledge your letter or the invoice as legal
or lawful.
If necessary we will contact the Dept of Trade and Industry, Office
of Fair Trading, Camden Trading Standards, Watchdog and anyone else
who will listen if we hear from you again.
Yours faithfully
etc
strangely a month after they got their letter I also got one - I had used an image (and purchased license) for a clients website - once launched I featured a screenshot of the homepage which had the image (fairly large) within it plus a detail of the screenshot with the image in it on my portfolio page.
I pointed out same points above as my client and I have had an email stating my reason has been accepted and no further action will be taken.
joust said:
Justin - all great advice.
J
That wasnt my letter, that was just copied and pasted from the other thread. I spoze I did find it though. J
Seems like with a little bit of defensive posturing he will be in the clear.
They must be making a fortune out of this. Some people are being charged £10,000 I have read.
If the average is £5,000 and the 'win' 200 per week then that would be a cool £1m a week!
crmcatee said:
Joust & Crmcatee - many thanks. Just going trough the 56 od pages now....Much reasured.
Nope, not a sassauge.
Im confident on this section of the law now and that that I have a solid inital defence and further very small risk of compensation if it all went pear shaped anyway.
Sounds like like they are trying bully boy tactics. The more I read/recearch about them the more its is a scam based upon their assertion what they think is the Law. When in-fact they are way off the mark in both the actual law and infrindgement and then 2nd in any compensation/loss they can claim.
One of the links given earlier has been great from the FSB. :cheers:
http://www.fsb.org.uk/discuss/forum_posts.asp?TID=...
Many thanks for your help!
Im confident on this section of the law now and that that I have a solid inital defence and further very small risk of compensation if it all went pear shaped anyway.
Sounds like like they are trying bully boy tactics. The more I read/recearch about them the more its is a scam based upon their assertion what they think is the Law. When in-fact they are way off the mark in both the actual law and infrindgement and then 2nd in any compensation/loss they can claim.
One of the links given earlier has been great from the FSB. :cheers:
http://www.fsb.org.uk/discuss/forum_posts.asp?TID=...
Many thanks for your help!
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 12th March 09:42
You won't.
Any communication like this - i.e. the first thing you get is an invoice, is almost certainly a try-on, scam or fraud.
Anyone who has a genuine grievance about an image which may have breached copyright will always write first to explain their position and give the other side a chance to make amends and/or explain themselves.
What it comes down to is that all big picture agencies know they are facing a downturn in revenue and are resorting to pretty suspect tactics to try and bully some money out of the gullible. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually made a conscious decision to include those sample images in Vista knowing full well they would be used on countless websites so they could then send out these demands.
If any of these cases went to court, the fact that they didn't act reasonably in the first place would almost certainly be enough in itself for them to lose.
Any communication like this - i.e. the first thing you get is an invoice, is almost certainly a try-on, scam or fraud.
Anyone who has a genuine grievance about an image which may have breached copyright will always write first to explain their position and give the other side a chance to make amends and/or explain themselves.
What it comes down to is that all big picture agencies know they are facing a downturn in revenue and are resorting to pretty suspect tactics to try and bully some money out of the gullible. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually made a conscious decision to include those sample images in Vista knowing full well they would be used on countless websites so they could then send out these demands.
If any of these cases went to court, the fact that they didn't act reasonably in the first place would almost certainly be enough in itself for them to lose.
fastfreddy said:
Anyone who has a genuine grievance about an image which may have breached copyright will always write first to explain their position and give the other side a chance to make amends and/or explain themselves.
Exactly we once made a genuine error, leaving a watermarked image on a page of a customers web site. It somehow got left in from when the site was in beta, and missed off the approval list and thus we didnt pay the licence fee or change it to the licenced un water marked image. 12 months or so later our client gets an e-mail from the image library. They pass the mail to us, it basically says you are using an unlicenced image please remove or licence.. I contacted them immedietly ( after kicking my designer) apologised and immedietly licenced the image on line ( £20 or so) and updated it with the unwatermarked image.. We got a mail back thanking us for our prompt action and they even credited our account with some free images..Thats the proper way to do business, we now use them for almost all of our licenced images...
mind you if you think getty are extortionate have you seen how much the national portrait gallery charge...
We had an exhibition intranet and needed to include an image of Queen victoria that had been reproduced in the exhibition. They had already paid to reproduce the image as a picture on the wall, and it cost another 500 quid to reproduce the image on the closed intranet, plus another fee for the thumbnail... I hate to think what they would want to use it on the Internet. IT was a nice picture mind..
There are a number of companies in Hamburg, Germany who's single aim in their daily working week is to surf the net and find images that they can try to claim compensation for use by a third party.
Several times people have tried to challenge their rights to seek out the offenders, then the copyright holder and then claim using the copyrighted angle...
Since moving to Germany I've had 2 such letters claiming substantial sums for copyright infringement, on both occasions the photo's detailed were mine, in which case I drafted a nice letter in return thanking them for their concern and that any further contact from them in such regard will be reported to the authorities as harassment....nothing since
Several times people have tried to challenge their rights to seek out the offenders, then the copyright holder and then claim using the copyrighted angle...
Since moving to Germany I've had 2 such letters claiming substantial sums for copyright infringement, on both occasions the photo's detailed were mine, in which case I drafted a nice letter in return thanking them for their concern and that any further contact from them in such regard will be reported to the authorities as harassment....nothing since
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff