|
Hi TL! :D
I'm sure there's plenty of legal experts on tl.net, so I'm coming to you guys first with my problem.
So today my dad got a letter from an image provider company claiming that an image on the website I designed for his company was licensed by them and that we were using it without a license, so we had to pay a $780 settlement (and no, we wouldn't be able to use it after).
The thing is, I found this in Google images, and it's actually used on some other websites (one significant one: the SFDA's English website; that's basically the Chinese FDA). The image also includes no registration or license details in the properties and has no watermarks.
Then my question is: are we actually required to pay anything, or can we just remove the image?
 
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
You'll need to talk to a lawyer, I believe. However, regardless as to whether or not other people were stealing the image, or whether or not you found it via google images, the result in the same: you can't use that content without permission.
An IP lawyer may give you a free consultation on this. Don't go non-paying or anything based on people's advice here-- most of us aren't lawyers.
|
Doubt some Chinese website is going to get sued. Just because you found it on Google images doesn't mean you can use it. Consult a lawyer
|
How do you know the other websites did not get the same letter? It is kind of like getting a speeding ticket while everyone else around you was breaking the same law. You got caught. Ask a lawyer it is much easier.
|
Well, lets face it, and this is by no means an insult or country bashing, but most of eastern Asia isn't exactly known around the world for considering copyright inviolate. Finding it on that website doesn't mean much.
With that cheap of a settlement, they're probably just trying to scare you to make money, figuring you'd realize that hiring a lawyer is more expensive than just paying up. Unfortunately, your best bet is to talk to a lawyer, but I'd suggest asking them to prove it, shouldn't be too hard.
My dad had something similar to this happen... shit, back in '90 or '91, I think. He had a joke website set up called Roadkills-R-Us, and a certain toy company contacted him threatening to sue if he didn't remove the R-Us from letterheads, website, etc.
They ended up losing a lot of money to returns after he mentioned it on his web site, and enough people told them why they were returning stuff that it got dropped.
But then, parody is protected, so that's probably a terrible example.
|
You should probably make sure that they actually own the rights to that image, and that the people suing you are legit.
Otherwise, it sounds like you stole their work.
|
I'm almost 100% sure that Chinese websites didn't purchase rights to the image (being Chinese myself).
I'm pretty sure the people suing are legit (actually it's not even a lawsuit.. they're just demanding money - that's different, right?) by their website.
But anyhow, thanks for the advice/info. Dad's prob gonna talk with a lawyer.
|
On September 20 2011 06:42 mmp wrote:
You should probably make sure that they actually own the rights to that image, and that the people suing you are legit.
This, plus check to see if the image is actually registered with the US Copyright Office: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ Searching for an image can be tough; if you can't find it, you might want to ask the people claiming infringement for a registration number.
If it's not registered, they can't sue you for infringement, although you should stop using their image to avoid a lawsuit in the future.
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On September 20 2011 06:51 ShadowDrgn wrote:
If it's not registered, they can't sue you for infringement, although you should stop using their image to avoid a lawsuit in the future.
Registration is not necessary to protect one's copyright, it just makes it much easier to do so.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Copyright_registration
|
Well, it's definitely not registered.
I've already removed the image from the website; if the copyright isn't "registered" can they pursue monetary compensation?
|
One of those advantages is the ability to sue. 
Check out 17 USC 411.
|
If you took the image of Google then you can be pursued for monetary compensation, in fact a stock company is suing my friend for over $5,000 cause of a Google image, just because it does not have a water mark does not mean it is not copyrighted, There are logos all over the place that are copyrighted and no water mark.
On a side note for future reference (basically common knowledge for any Web Designer), if you take from Google you must modify the images, Google does not have to because it directs you to the page owners page then extracts the image just like View Image.
|
More likely than not, they are trolls hoping to scare people out of their money by threatening litigation.
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
Image on internet is usually somebody's intelectual property. And you're not allowed to use it unless stated otherwise.
|
On September 20 2011 07:17 Phtes wrote:
If you took the image of Google then you can be pursued for monetary compensation, in fact a stock company is suing my friend for over $5,000 cause of a Google image, just because it does not have a water mark does not mean it is not copyrighted, There are logos all over the place that are copyrighted and no water mark.
On a side note for future reference (basically common knowledge for any Web Designer), if you take from Google you must modify the images, Google does not have to because it directs you to the page owners page then extracts the image just like View Image.
So then, if I changed the color it should be alright?
|
On September 20 2011 08:22 Jaso wrote:
So then, if I changed the color it should be alright?
Lol no, when you take an image and modify it the original image has to be so change it cannot be considered the same piece. Something around 70% of the image must be changes so that the two do not look alike
Ex. I take a picture of a burger on Google, I fade parts of the burger, take a texture, give a texture background, add font, modify the burger more with cropping / fading and other things I would do for a banner, now it looks like a completely different image and is legal.
|
Changing the color will still be a copyright violation (unauthorized derivative work), but it will be more difficult for the copyright holder to discover you in the first place. That's not really a solution though.
I've already removed the image from the website; if the copyright isn't "registered" can they pursue monetary compensation?
It's a bit complicated. Check out 17 USC 411 and 412.
|
On September 20 2011 08:41 ShadowDrgn wrote:Changing the color will still be a copyright violation (unauthorized derivative work), but it will be more difficult for the copyright holder to discover you in the first place. That's not really a solution though. Show nested quote +I've already removed the image from the website; if the copyright isn't "registered" can they pursue monetary compensation? It's a bit complicated. Check out 17 USC 411 and 412.
He is perfectly within bounds to take an image and modify it as long as he makes it unrecognizable to the original image.
Removing the image does nothing for you as the website is already cached and logged with the image from earlier, which is still reachable.
|
I realize that they have access to the image; but shouldn't there be something where they give a warning to remove the image instead of just send a letter saying, "sup that picture's ours, give us money"?
And I read through 17 USC 412; if I understood properly, they can't make any claims if it's not registered?
|
On September 20 2011 08:44 Phtes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:41 ShadowDrgn wrote:Changing the color will still be a copyright violation (unauthorized derivative work), but it will be more difficult for the copyright holder to discover you in the first place. That's not really a solution though. I've already removed the image from the website; if the copyright isn't "registered" can they pursue monetary compensation? It's a bit complicated. Check out 17 USC 411 and 412. He is perfectly within bounds to take an image and modify it as long as he makes it unrecognizable to the original image.
We agree.
Removing the image does nothing for you as the website is already cached and logged with the image from earlier, which is still reachable.
The point of removing the image is to stop violating copyright. If the image wasn't registered during the period it was shown on his website, he isn't liable for any damages (some limited exceptions apply!). If the owner registers the copyright and he's still using the image on his website, he's then liable for damages.
Like others have said, this is 99% some asshole that finds images being used by lots of websites, buys the image from the owner (maybe?), then threatens to sue everyone using it unless they settle.
|
Actually.. it appears to be a pretty big company and has a partnership with Flickr (not sure about details) and has it's own Wikipedia page. Not sure if I can link or not.
edit: sold in 2008 for 2.4b.. seems legit lol.
edit2: apparently, they've sent out millions of these letters usually asking for >$1,000, but almost never take people to court because they rarely win cases.. as long as the image isn't registered with US copyright office, some court decision in NYC makes it really hard for them to win anything in court.
|
On September 20 2011 08:57 Jaso wrote:
Actually.. it appears to be a pretty big company and has a partnership with Flickr (not sure about details) and has it's own Wikipedia page. Not sure if I can link or not.
edit: sold in 2008 for 2.4b.. seems legit lol.
edit2: apparently, they've sent out millions of these letters usually asking for >$1,000, but almost never take people to court because they rarely win cases.. as long as the image isn't registered with US copyright office, some court decision in NYC makes it really hard for them to win anything in court.
Take the image down, as you did, ignore there letter, if they continue to pursue it hten you will know it' serious.
All in all take this as a lesson and don't just Google image anymore without doing the proper modifications. Taking images like that can lead to serious trouble if it turns out it came from a Stock Company (Very aggressive companies when it comes to this) and if this is your profession it writes you off with a very bad rep.
|
On September 20 2011 09:45 Phtes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:57 Jaso wrote:
Actually.. it appears to be a pretty big company and has a partnership with Flickr (not sure about details) and has it's own Wikipedia page. Not sure if I can link or not.
edit: sold in 2008 for 2.4b.. seems legit lol.
edit2: apparently, they've sent out millions of these letters usually asking for >$1,000, but almost never take people to court because they rarely win cases.. as long as the image isn't registered with US copyright office, some court decision in NYC makes it really hard for them to win anything in court.
Take the image down, as you did, ignore there letter, if they continue to pursue it hten you will know it' serious. All in all take this as a lesson and don't just Google image anymore without doing the proper modifications. Taking images like that can lead to serious trouble if it turns out it came from a Stock Company (Very aggressive companies when it comes to this) and if this is your profession it writes you off with a very bad rep.
Good thing I'm 15 .
By stock company, do you mean one that has stock photos, or trades on the market? This one used to but was delisted.. so I guess that's good.
|
yeah its hard to win a copyright lawsuit over something so frivolous.
an entire course over entertainment law and all i learned is without registering your work its impossible to win, and even after still difficult. exceptions to books movies and other such detailed works.
|
On September 20 2011 10:23 Jaso wrote:Good thing I'm 15 . By stock company, do you mean one that has stock photos, or trades on the market? This one used to but was delisted.. so I guess that's good.
Yes stock companies are organizations that have pictures for sale (usually absurdly priced but extremely high quality) and can sometimes have the Google Image not display the watermark (or a 3rd party removed it) which can lead into very serious legal problems for someone who "steals" it
|
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On September 20 2011 07:13 ShadowDrgn wrote:One of those advantages is the ability to sue. Check out 17 USC 411.
You are right. I sorta misread what you typed as "no copyright without registration."
|
Wait so someone just mailed an official looking letter to your house and claimed something and you settled with them asap? What is your address please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
