Any Copyright Lawyers in the house?

[Dave2P]

Do we have, or can anyone recommend, a good legal type to advise on defending a copyright claim?

In summary -

- An online business we've worked with are affiliates for [a big supplier of widgets] and get passed data feeds with URLs for millions of images (hosted and served by big supplier) to use promoting said widgets.
- Said images are simply linked inline so they show within the affiliate's pages, but are not copied or hosted by the affiliate.
- One of those images (of, literally, millions) has a copyright lawyer chasing down use as it was provided to [big supplier] by another party who didn't have the rights to use it.
- Lawyer appears to be going after the affiliates of [big supplier], demanding 4-figure sums, presumably as the affiliates are less likely to have strong legal teams than [big supplier].

Red bull-powered sausage hammering already being planned, but any legal / knowledgeable advice much appreciated!

Message/email via PH very welcome if preferred.

Thanks in advance, Dave

[ManicMunky]

Do they have anything in writing that states the usage or ownership rights of the images passed to them?

[Graveworm]

It partly depends on what they are basing their 4 figures on. If it's a sum pulled out of the air then the damages don't exist. If however the holder has actually rights managed fees for the kind of usage going on and real customers who have paid them then the infringement is actionable.
There are companies who do this on behalf of photographers just like injury lawyers etc. They submit their images and fees to the agencies who search for violations and take a percentage. For some it's becoming a big chunk of their income.
Ignorance is not a defence for primary infringement but in some cases it can be for secondary infringement. I am not completely clear as to the exact nature of the subsidiary so this may be where they need to focus. A link is a copy for the purposes of copyright.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 21st June 00:59

[Dave2P]

Thanks for your input, much appreciated.

ManicMunky said:

Do they have anything in writing that states the usage or ownership rights of the images passed to them?

AFAIAA, the images can't be copied (by the affiliate) and can only be used (via inline links) to illustrate the widgets prior to referring interested parties to [big co].

Graveworm said:

There are companies who do this on behalf of photographers just like injury lawyers etc. They submit their images and fees to the agencies who search for violations and take a percentage. For some it's becoming a big chunk of their income.

This appears to be exactly that; with the fees being demanded and a process that looks largely automated, they must be making a fortune!

Graveworm said:

Ignorance is not a defence for primary infringement but in some cases it can be for secondary infringement. I am not completely clear as to the exact nature of the subsidiary so this may be where they need to focus.

Thank you - that makes sense and sounds applicable.

There are 3 parties in the chain (not including the rights owner and the lawyer) :-
- Owner (of widget) provides info and photos to [big co] for marketing.
- [big co] aggregates many widgets and makes all photos available on their servers.
- Affilliate (of [big co]) gets sent links to said photos to use on affiliate website.

I'd assume (IANAL, of course) then that Owner is the one in the firing line for the primary infringement and that [big co] and Affiliate are unwitting participants in secondary (tertiary???).

Does that sound right?

Graveworm said:

A link is a copy for the purposes of copyright.

Has that been established for certain?

I know that was a potential end result of the EU's recent law-making (Article 13?) but there are references around the web to a case against Google on that basis - that was decided in Google's favour.


If a link is a "copy" in this context, then aren't search engines, the likes of Pinterest and any social sharing network out of business? Or do they rely on such use always being "secondary infringements"?

[Graveworm]

Google was the perfect 10 case. They didn't argue that linked images were not protected by copyright. Their argument was that displaying them as a search engine was fair use. They did change the way the image results were presented as a result of portions that went against them. .
All images on Web pages are links. It's just some link to images hosted locally.

[ElectricPics]

Graveworm said:

.
All images on Web pages are links. It's just some link to images hosted locally.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works - images on web pages are downloaded by the browser to the local device where they're cached for display.

[Graveworm]

ElectricPics said:

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works - images on web pages are downloaded by the browser to the local device where they're cached for display.

Downloaded from where. How do they know where to download from?
Your truth doesn't contradict mine.

[ElectricPics]

Graveworm said:

Downloaded from where. How do they know where to download from?
Your truth doesn't contradict mine.

Downloaded from a server - told by the code in the webpage where to download from, and how to display it.

[Graveworm]

ElectricPics said:

Downloaded from a server - told by the code in the webpage where to download from, and how to display it.

Exactly. Which is exactly what I said. Sometimes the server is the same as that hosting the Web page sometimes it's a different one.

[ElectricPics]

Graveworm said:

ElectricPics said:

Downloaded from a server - told by the code in the webpage where to download from, and how to display it.

Exactly. Which is exactly what I said. Sometimes the server is the same as that hosting the Web page sometimes it's a different one.

You've missed the point entirely. Regardless of where the image is stored on a server, a copy is always fetched by the browser and cached on the local device - it's not a link to the image.

[Graveworm]

ElectricPics said:

You've missed the point entirely. Regardless of where the image is stored on a server, a copy is always fetched by the browser and cached on the local device - it's not a link to the image.

I know thst. My 10 year old god daughter knows that. I am not sure why that matters. The Web page does contain a link to the image. That's how the browser knows where to get it. That's why that link is subject to copyright infringement despite obviously in itself inot being an artistic work. One ECJ case is GS Media v Sanoma Media Netherlands

[anonymous-user]

In this case, surely you settle the infringement claim, then raise a claim against whoever provided the image?

[Dave2P]

Spumfry said:

In this case, surely you settle the infringement claim, then raise a claim against whoever provided the image?

Well, first step is to clarify if the claim is valid and actionable - hence the OP.

The [affiliate] is an entirely innocent party in this, at least 2 steps removed from whoever originally copied the image. There's no possible mechanism by which they could have known that the origins of the copy-of-a-copy (at least) - of one of several million images - would be disputed.

All the [affiliate] knows at this point is that they have a demand for thousands of Euros ("or we will commence legal action") from a lawyer in another country!

Yes, they could just pay out a few grand and then sue one of their major long-term business partners (who turnover billions) but, as you might imagine, don't see that as a great business strategy...

[Dave2P]

FAO Graveworm - tried to message you but your profile's not enabled for emails. Just wanted to thank you for your input.

If you do practice in this field (or we do have any copyright/IP lawyers here), feel free to message me via PH. Cheers.

Thanks also to the other contributors here; I've passed this on and will update if any developments.