Help - breach of copyright?

[superlightr]

Advice please.

In Vista/pictures/sample pictures are some pictures. I have used one in our web site. Is this still breach of copyright when they came with vista and listed as sample pictures?

I have been asked to pay £1700 fee for this 'breach' but when I look at their site the cost to be licenced to use this image would be about £39.

We do pay to use pictures but did not for this one as it came as a sample in vista.

Thanks

[superlightr]

Hi

It is from Getty writing.

the image was from my computer which came with Vista preinstalled.

C:\Users\Public\Pictures\Sample Pictures

Its listed as a public picture. I use vista business. There is no details of any restriction with the picture or in the help menu. Have a look on your pc.


Any views on the amount. I understood that even if a breach has occured they cannot charge more than they would have got if you had been licenced.

Thanks for the help.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 7th February 12:49

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 7th February 12:53

[superlightr]

EmmaP said:

I would have thought (think not know) it would depend on their definition of 'sample' and whether or not that 'sample' was protected by copyright. Did you not check the small print and copyright details on their site first?

I didnt copy and paste from a web site. Clearly that would be wrong.

It is within vista a public photo/sample picture hence beleived it was ok to use.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 7th February 13:11

[superlightr]

JustinP1 said:

There is a similar thread to this in the SP&L section.

There seems to be 'bounty hunter' type companies who either do or do not have authorisation from the companies they represent to scour the net for infringements and demand an amount for their 'legal costs'.

My advice in that thread is to stop using the infringing item immediately and respond by telling the company that you do not recognise you have done anything wrong - DO NOT go into any more detail than this, and let them know that as a gesture of goodwill however, you have already removed the image and will not use it in the future.

After that there is no evidence for the company to take you to court with, and secondly it will be nigh on impossible to prove the damage of £1700 through its use. The client in this case has already had their interests protected, and therefore will have no motivation in authorising the company to chase you legally.

Its the scattergun approach. Some people *will* pay up straight away. Just act quickly, and their impetus will flounder.

Thanks for all the replies. I feel the same.

Should it not be the owner of the copyright not this 3rd party? albeit Getty.


They have a poor quality screen shot of a web page which is hard to make out anthing on. (although we have used it) The image used is a thumb sized on our web site. It has been removed the day we got their letter.

If it did go to court, would they have to prove damages suffered were £1700? compared to their normal licence of £39.

Does Getty have the right to sue on behalf of the owner? should they not provide proof of this?

Is the public photos in vista a defence?

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 7th February 13:54

[superlightr]

Why high court not the county/small claims?

[superlightr]

joust said:

tog said:

In the UK you cannot be fined punitive damages for copyright infringement. You can only be fined what they have lost - ie the appropriate licence fee - plus their costs.

Whilst this has been consulted on by the DCA I don't believe that has actually made it into law yet?

The consultation is here
http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/damages/cp0907.htm

Given this, it would be highly unusual for a court to award punative damages given the statements from the government about their intentions.

My advice would be to remove the item and write back saying that you have done so, and that they should provide evidence of their loss relating to their claim. As above, if they really press and do prove it, offer them the £40.

It would be exceptionally hard for them to progress it any further, and for £40 it'll give you an easy life!

J

Edited by joust on Thursday 7th February 17:23

Thanks -sorry for the wake up call from hibination!

Letter sent as described above, ie unaware we had done something wrong, dont beleive we have but for goodwill have immediatly removed the image and wont use it in future.

Will see what happens. Im sure that as they are preinstalled in vista and a public folder but with no warnings anywhere in/near the picture I could argue it was a genuine mistake, that I took them to be public pictures ie unrestrictive. I didnt take them from Getty, they were given in the OS.

Next step will be to ask them proof of ownership/copyright. I think they think I took it from their web site which I didnt. Happy to pay 39gbp if we need to, but it needs to go to the owner which is not necessary Getty.

Is it the High Court rather than county court?

[superlightr]

crmcatee said:

superlightr said:

Should it not be the owner of the copyright not this 3rd party? albeit Getty.

I think you'll find that when you installed Vista - the T&C blurb said that the images were actually copyright Getty - hence they're the ones chasing you. It's their copyright.

Relatively easy to search google images for the filename that's included within Vista and find it that way.

Dont think I signed/ticked any boxes as the pc has Vista already installed and up and running. I understand that images are generally licenced/copyrighted but as these were in this particular folder, I took it to be unrestricted.

The image was not sold, or printed, just used as a thumb nail on the website next to a description of some property details. rather than a blank pic, something pretty. Hence finding the pic in the pictures/public folder. There was no link back to getty in Vista near the image or in its decritption/properties etc.


As for a loss If we had got it from Getty it would be about 39gbp . So cant see how 1700gbp comesinto it.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 7th February 19:23

Edited by superlightr on Friday 8th February 11:32

[superlightr]

Joust - thank you. I Appreciate your help.

[superlightr]

crmcatee said:

Got an hour or two...

People in the same boat as you..

54 pages and counting

Joust & Crmcatee - many thanks. Just going trough the 56 od pages now....

Much reasured.

[superlightr]

Joust Im sending a 2nd letter similar to the one above, (recoreded del now) adding that the image did not come from Getty


regards

Edited by superlightr on Friday 8th February 12:33

[superlightr]

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!

Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 12th March 09:42

[superlightr]

update for another poster;

Still heard nothing back from Getty.