Violated Copyright Law — Now What? 112
An anonymous reader asks: "I am US-based and have recently been doing part-time subcontracting work for a friend in the UK who runs her own small marketing firm. She sells a complete branding/identity plan and if that includes a web site refresh, she calls me. The clients do not know who or where I am, or even that the work is being subbed. Like many designers, I often use Corbis and other photo merchants to mock up layouts for review. It is legal to download images (comps) from Corbis to use offline for the this purpose. If the client likes the design/images, I get a quote from the photo vendor and the client has the option to purchase. If the price is too high, which it often is with Corbis, I turn to less expensive or free alternatives." The problem comes when the site goes live and images from Corbis (or others of its ilk) aren't replaced, which is an honest mistake as long as it doesn't happen excessively. How does one handle isolating the customer, fixing the problem, and paying the proper fees (professional legal consultation here goes without saying) without everything getting blown out of proportion?
One of her clients, for whom I recently designed a site, just received a $25,000 invoice from a law firm in London representing Corbis, who claimed their content was on the client's site. The client of course was frantic when they received the bill and called my marketing friend, who called me. I investigated and sure enough, there were images on the site that were rightfully the property of Corbis, which I put there. In this instance I neglected to swap out the comps with legal images I purchased for the client from another online source before I made the site live. As a designer I respect content rights and did not, would not, maliciously steal images. The client and my friend had no idea.
I moved quickly to correct the situation — scrubbed the site and looked through other clients' sites to make sure nothing else had gotten through. I called Corbis and told their legal department what happened and they told me I would have to deal with the law firm, who handles "all our overseas affairs." I then sent a certified letter to the law firm telling them what happened in an attempt to exonerate the client, and by default, my friend. That was today.
I quoted the images in question on the Corbis site and the total would have been about $800. I did my due-googling and in the spectrum of copyright infringement, I want to believe I'm closer to the speeder than I am the serial-killer. Other photo houses (Getty) send out cease and desist letter and it's done. There is mention of similar situations on some forums, especially in the UK, but I can't seem to find any precedent as to what my fate might be. Does anyone have any idea? I made about $1,000 for the site about a year ago, and as much as it would pain me, would be willing to give that up to make this go away. However, something tells me this is going to get ugly."
| ouch (Score:2)
or perhaps bite the pillow
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps (in the immortal words-and voice--of Edie McClurg from Planes, Trains and & Automobiles): You're fucked.
This is where liability insurance comes in (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, my agents offer this. No, I'm not saying who, because that could reach every state in the Union and that would mean I'm advertising out of state. I'm just saying... get business liability insurance and make sure it has advertising injury coverage. It's usually under "personal injury" and stuff like that.
Good luck.
Lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawyer (Score:4, Informative)
Lawyers get dollar signs in their eyes when they hear this kind of crap. Its not beyond the skill of man to draft contracts that intelligent people can understand. lawyers try to create some bullshit that "only lawyers can talk to lawyers" to perpetuate their gravy train. Once you see this attitdue for what it is, its laughable.
Some company just unleashed a lawyer at me, with a long rambling letter that they probably got charged $300 for. A simple 2 minute, 15 cent polite phonecall would have got them what they were asking for, but instead they decided to throw the cash at their lawyers.
Very few problems are made better by the application of lawyers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, sending a letter admitting that you are responsible for copyright infringement (as the questioner did) is bone-headed. A lawyer knows how to spin things and what to get in writing, and it can hurt a litigant's chances quite a lot if the litigant says or does the wrong things.
Courts and the bar system hold lawyers responsible for advocating in the most effective way poss
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the whole Corbis thing has the real stink of a copyright trap. With so many hundreds of thousands of images out there on the net and the growth of the creative commons, those photo companies are a dead end and are obviously becoming
Re:Lawyer (Score:4, Interesting)
Many problems are averted by the pre-emptive application of a lawyer. That is, dot the i's and cross the t's before you walk into a business situation that might have negative consequences. Generally, only someone intimately familiar with the applicable law can do that for you.
Sometimes you can operate on a handshake, but unless you have a certain degree of trust (and history) between you and your customer, it's generally best to put it on paper. I've always found that the people that did not want to have a business arrangement committed to a written contract were the ones intended to shaft me later. Fifteen years as a contract developer taught me that much.
My beef isn't so much with attorneys themselves (who, after all, are just paid employees, corporate tools like the rest of us) but with the suits who own them using them as a first line of defense, rather than as a matter of last resort. Granted, the lawyers often encourage that kind of thinking.
Sometimes it works out. I was on a contract job about twenty years ago where we delivered on our milestones for the project, and (as you might think) expected to get paid. The customer started coming up with lots of additional things that he wanted to have included in the program (stuff not in the spec)
Apparently, the manager of the project had actually lied to the lawyer, thinking that we would immediately cave in because of the implied legal threat. This guy was interesting though, and really tried to serve as a negotiator, asked me "come on, I still sense some enthusiasm for the project, isn't there any way we can work this out?" I told him, sure, enthusiasm isn't the issue, money is the issue. We're a business too, and we expect to get paid for our trouble. Once he realized that I wasn't kidding, that he'd been lied to
I got the feeling some attitudes adjustments got made. Lawyers don't like being made into fools. However, I was impressed that this lawyer didn't come down like a ton of bricks right off the bat: he tried to get all the facts first.
Re:Lawyer (Score:4, Informative)
Is the wrong answer in this case.
As this is in the hands of a UK law firm, talking to a US law firm is going to do you exactly no good at all - except run up a huge legal bill as they consult a UK firm.
My first approach would be to phone the person who sent the letter (yes, I know, international call charges - tough) and speak to them directly. The UK is not as litigious as the US, and it's quite possible that if you're humble enough and apologetic enough they'll agree not to pursue the action further. Don't be embarrassed to grovel - it could save you a lot of money. Be very, very polite. If Corbis have effectively farmed out their UK collections business to this firm, they may feel that they have costs to recover, in which case get them to tell you - over the phone - what they will accept.
The next question is what your business - and personal - relationship with your friend is worth. If you want to keep those relationships, you can't walk away from the problem - you have to indemnify your friend and your friend's customer against this action.
If, in the end, you cannot get Corbis' law firm to agree to a sum you can afford, then you should get yourself a lawyer. You need to find out whether they propose to take action under English or Scottish law (which are quite different) and get yourself an English or Scottish lawyer as appropriate. I strongly recommend that if there is a hearing you come personally across to the UK. British judges are much more likely to be persuaded by a polite and apologetic personal appearance than by any letter.
Best of luck, my sympathies, and in future take your own photographs.
Re:Lawyers JUSTICE over the pond (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing that this post was made on Slashdot. I'm sure there are other slashdotters who've (cough) accidentally used images from Corbis or another firm.
Your problem was (Score:3, Interesting)
By explaining yourself to them in writing, you opened yourself up to all sorts of things. Never write down. Just clean it up and forget about it.
MOD PARENT UP [Re: Your problem was] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Not a bad idea.
-1 Might make things much, much worse.
So I suppose it all evens out..
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
NEVER ADMIT GUILT! (Especially to the OPPOSITIONS LAWYER!!!)
That works in movies and sit-coms. It *MIGHT* have worked if the company itself had contacted you. But to their LAWYER?!? Bad, BAD move. As far as the lawyer is concerned, you just won them their case. Now all they have to do is take you for however much they can get away with.
Remember: not all lawyers are evil, but they certainly aren't out to help you over their *client*.
Re: (Score:2)
All they need is their own search engine spider that looks for the name of the company holding the rights to the picture. This is probably how they find offenders in the first place.
Re:Your problem was (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to read closer.
It is not the site designer's site but his design work. Not only that its work he/she sub-contracted for the friend. The designer can't ignore it or it just becomes a bigger financial and reputational headache. They can end up with not only one judgement to pay for but the cost of three judgements and accompanying law fees, not to mention gaining the bad reputation of not standing behind their work.
The right way is to get a lawyer and arrange a settlement suitable to all parties concerned. This will protect their and their friend's reputation. Of course, if they can't afford the settlement it brings up another problem. IANAL and designer in question needs to see a real one. IMO as part of the settlement they should request that Corbis send notice to the company the site was created for that the matter has been handled to their satisfaction by the marketing firm that contracted the job. Of course the lawyer they hire will probably need approval to negotiate a settlement from the website owners.
No, your problem was (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The defacing would h
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now that you mention it, it does seem like a good idea. I bet it would be easy to filter all images through a program that will automatically watermark them such that the customer sees what they would look like but doesn't accept them the way they are.
Re:Your problem was (Score:5, Interesting)
The bottom line here is that he fucked up, and has been caught out. His only real option now is to handle the situation as professionally as possible; anything else risks real and lasting damage to his reputation, especially as first contact in this situation was made via the client who's site it was that was infringing. In fact, it's not just his reputation, but that of his friend and her firm.
Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, the question is how you go about recovering from them. Something like this you simply cannot afford to ignore.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
To run with your analogy, Eben Moglen has given us a rather detailed discussion [gnu.org] of what happens when exactly this issue comes up with GPL'd code. Key phrase:
"A quiet initial contact is usually sufficient to resolve the problem. Parties thought they were complying with GPL, and are pleased to follow advi
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is not to provide evidence against yourself EVER. I think most all of us can understand the "stand-up-guy" urge, but "honorable" in a legal situation should only apply to the title of the judges. Attempting to bring things like common sense, mercy, altruism, reason and hope into a legal setting will only get you mowed down like the deer-facing-the-headlights that you presently are.
"Reas
Re:Your problem was (Score:4, Insightful)
This may be good advice in a US context - I don't know. It's really, really bad advice in a UK context. Most UK lawyers are reasonable; and, furthermore, UK courts cannot be bought and are always reasonable. But one thing they won't tolerate is unreasonableness.
If you go to a UK law firm and say, 'look, I messed up, it was an honest mistake, I won't do it again, I'll happily pay your reasonable costs for sending that letter', you'll probably end up with a bill for under US$100. If they refuse and take the matter to court, then the judge will certainly look positively at that sort of approach. But if you attempt to do anything 'tough' or 'clever' you are going to be in such deep trouble.
Be humble. Be contrite. Be apologetic. Grovel. It will save a whole heap of trouble and money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd hope that the judge wouldn't award costs against you if the final bill is the same as the amount you offered to settle. If your offer is totally u
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer either. But I do know that the UK has a "loser pays" judicial system - if you go to court and lose your case, then you pay both your costs and your opponent's costs anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Were you dropped on your head as a child?
"Allege" that they hacked your site? Why didn't you go to the police? Can we say defamation?
He may have opened up all sorts of things by explaining himself. Your "solution", on the other hand, exposes him to further legal costs, exposes him to all manner of things, including CRIMINAL SANCTIONS for, I don't know, BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW to try to escape l
hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
You'd didn't mark the images for review only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Put "SAMPLE" or something over every photo as a watermark. End of problem.
I thought Corbis DID? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only iStock still has a visible watermark on downloaded comping images for account holders.
The rest have a specific digital watermark embedded that is not visible. If you do not have an account then Corbis/Getty/Veer do put a visible badge on the image and a digital watermark.
Well then the obvious answer... (Score:2)
...is to use your account for perusal, buying, etc etc etc, and use a browser/profile with no account on Corbis to actually download the for-public-consumption images. The visible watermarking is already done for you.
The other option would be to just mogrify(1) the entire image directory to overlay your watermark on everything on the mockup.
Re: (Score:2)
Who'd like to take a bet that the purchase date of the images from the other site that he "neglected to replace" is actually after the date of receipt of the letter from Corbis' legal counsel?
Umm, hang on (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you know this? It happens often?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that he learned about the cease and desist letter through his googling.
Also, I'm surprised that they are going after the site so hard. The reason for the $25K invoice is probably because it's overseas and it's a lot more work for them to have to hire a UK lawyer to take care of thin
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is all so very stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's instant mod points to call copyright law bullshit, but come on.
These images have value. It is not trivial to shoot a commercial photograph. Photographers, models, art directors have to be paid and locations, props and equiptment have to be bought and rented. To obtain an original image of the equivalent quality would have cost this person far more than the license fee.
It's a shame that he got popped for it and I do hope it can be resolved painlessly, but they have a right to protect their product.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't do it for any mod points. I truly think this is all highly ridiculous and a mostly a waste of time.
The images having a value in and of it self is subjective, and also highly abstract - but more importantly, not at all worth all the trouble. I would like to believe the photo was taken to meet some need, and that need was not to be copyrighted. That is to say the value of the photo was alreayd used
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know if you are familiar with stock-photography, but many (if not most) of those pictures are shot, just to be sold on the site. Like it or not, but I think it's a great service, since it spares those copywriting persons a lot of hassle, and gives them great pictures in exchange for a little (or sometimes a lot of) money.
I have browsed the Corbis site regularly, just for the pure fun of it, and their standard is very high. If you can afford them, they are worth it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The images having a value in and of it self is subjective, and also highly abstract
No, the value of an image is what people are willing to pay for it.
I would like to believe the photo was taken to meet some need, and that need was not to be copyrighted. If the implication is that the photo was taken purely for copyright purposes, I find that even worse.
Why? Just because you dislike copyright, or does it offend some other fundamental principle that you hold? Do you get annoyed that shops are full of goods that weren't produced with someone specific in mind? Do you believe that the market for intellectual property should be reliant on one-off customised productions?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the demand for the image is what people would be willing to pay for it. The value of an image is subjective and impossible to measure, as it exists only in the mind of the one evaluating the image. Demand is a function of the potential buyer's resources, the available alternatives (competition), and the relative value of the image compared to all the other goods that person might wish to acquire. The thing is, absent the threat of co
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that water was probably a poor choice compared to air. Still, the common price for preprocessed tap water (or even bottled water) is hardly proportional to the "value" of water as most would estimate it -- particularly after going a few days without Similarly, people often pay others to make copies of various content ("co
Re: (Score:2)
And unless talking about a website specifically devoted to high-quality photography, what ends up online consists of a 17KB 300x200 fragment of the original that any hack with a 2MP digital could have
Re: (Score:2)
Photo aggregator sites like Corbis serve one purpose and one purpose only - Tagging. For the purpose of small-scale private web designers, he could almost certainly get what he wanted from the likes of Flikr, if it didn't take so much effort to find, for example, "a young brunette woman getting out of a blue sedan in front of a hotel, shot from the second story across the street"
Uh, no. As far as I know, even the CC-licensed images on Flickr don't normally come with a model release, and you could end up in all sorts of hot water if you used them in certain ways without that. IANAL, so don't ask me about the implications, but please be aware that model releases *are* a major issue.
Also, although Flickr has a lot of *very* high-quality images, I'm sure that there are certain situations where it's hard to find something that fits exactly. Stock photography can be generic and bland
a word about Corbis (Score:2)
Corbis was founded by Bill Gates in 1989 and archives over 25 million images in a secured - climate controlled - limestone mine in Pennsylvania.
There are few institutions outside the great national museums that have the resources to do this sort of thing.
The odds are very good that the source of any historically significant, instantly recognizable, image in print will be in the Corbis collections. The Bettmann Archieve [corbis.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Screw them.
Pageviews & watermark (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently /. is low on pageviews for the month so the editors are looking for a thousand IANAL (half of whome will give legal advice anyhow, a further half of whom are unable to comprehend that US law isn't universal (not for wont of trying.))
IANAL... (Score:4, Informative)
Talk to your lawyer. You should have talked to them before you even sent that letter.
Asking about the problem on Slashdot is a great way to throw a pity party, but a poor way to get sound legal advice.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
From the question, we can see that an invoice from a legal firm representing Corbis has sent the client an invoice. Big deal. No one has filed suit. Treat it as a warning, fix the issue and let Corbis's law firm work out the numbers on if they REALLY want to go to court over images valued at $800.
Even then, mistakes happen. Don't get so worried about it. The marketing friend in the UK and her client p
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So I guess her divorce lawyer was better than yours eh?
Dumb and dumber. (Score:2)
Ah, but you would nicely steal their images? The fact is, you *did* steal their images. Not only that - but you matters worse by taking action on your own, *and* posting to ask Slashdot, when you should have consulted your lawyer *first*. (Mostly it seems in the vain hope that the problem will just 'go away' and you won't have to pay the price for your own actions.)
Re: (Score:2)
You fucked up big time (Score:3, Insightful)
You really screwed up when you wrote the letter to their lawyers. It made the problem much, much worse for you, your friend, and her client.
The normal first step for a copyright holder in this situation is a cease-and-desist letter, not a huge fee. Their fee is exorbitant, they likely know that, and they would probably have settled for something close to the money you should have paid them to use the images. They might have even been happy once their images were removed from the web site and forgot about the fee. By writing the letter, you've bent over, dropped your pants and decided to forgo any lube.
If you have any insurance that would cover this sort of thing (liability for your business or an umbrella policy), now is the time to call your agent. (Actually, the time to call your agent was when you first heard about it the problem)
If you don't have insurance, you have three options:
1. Pay the ridiculous fee.
2. Screw over your friend.
3. Get your own lawyer, and hope that getting yourself out of this mess doesn't cost as much as the fee.
no, you did (Score:3, Insightful)
(IANAL)
You really screwed up when you wrote the letter to their lawyers. It made the problem much, much worse for you, your friend, and her client.
The little "(IANAL)" basically translates as "I am unqualified to tell you that 'You really screwed up when you wrote the letter to their lawyers.'" You don't know what the letter said. If the letter said, "This was an accident, not the client's intention, nor mine, wires got crossed somewhere, terribly sorry, and I took the offending material down and am taking steps to make sure this never happens again," then he and his client are a lot better off than if the letter said "I stole those images on purpo
Err... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point. It doesn't matter what the letter said. It never should have been sent - because, as you point out, the bill wasn't sent to him.
Re: (Score:2)
The poster relayed what he wrote in the letter, so I actually do have some idea what he said in the letter. While the specific content of the letter can make him slightly more or less screwed, he's still screwed because he admitted that he is guilty.
Congratulati
IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
What you do right now is talk to a *UK* lawyer, and mention this idea to them, asking for their opinion of it:
Write a letter back, headed "WITHOUT PRIVELEGE, SAVE AS TO COSTS". Offer to make a payment of $800 in settlement, stating that you believe this is the true market price of the material you used, and are more than happy to pay it.
If they accept your offer, you pay up, and that's the end of it.
If they don't accept, you go (or send a lawyer to) a UK court, and when an award, probably in the region of $800, is made to them, you (or your lawyer) shows the judge a copy of that letter, which should ensure that no costs award is made against you.
Re: (Score:3)
I meant to write: headed "WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS". That's an important difference. Doh!
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen the images posted by the submitter, nor their context, nor the online publishing contract. However, it would not surprise me to learn that the $25,000 is inclusive of the penalty for using the image without attribution, in which case Corbis coul
Re: (Score:2)
Send a cheque "in full and final settlement" (Score:4, Interesting)
Next time, why not use iStockphoto (disclaimer: I sell images there so I'm biased). Their system is to charge a few dollars for images at the comping stage, but this includes the rights to use the images in web pages, so you can't end up in this situation.
I dont know 'what' now but i know what 'then' (Score:2)
filing $25.000 for $800 worth material is SHIT, and RIAA behaviour.
if you designers see the stupidity and bastardly greed in this and choose not to use Corbis, that will give Corbis enough spare time to shove their copyrights up their lawyers' arses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that in Australia a private organisation cannot impose what amounts to a penalty/fine like that, they can only seek to recover the damages. As the quoted poster elegantly put it, $25000 is a stupid amount to try and claim. Given the roots of Australian law, perhaps something similar could apply in your case?
While all of this is very interesting and educational to discuss, anyone replying to you on slashdot is almost certainly not a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It just so happens that a similar situation occured for
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't the foggiest notion of where Corbis stands in the world of art and design.
Re: (Score:2)
Nay.
People can build better.
Refer to Linux vs Windows case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I want shit for free" is not always a valid retort to people's desire to make money from their work. Again, I'm still curious as to what this supposed business model actually is. Please, enlighten.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw em (Score:1)
Now, you want to do the right thing by your client, fine. I understand that. Offer them a few bucks to go away.
This is the kind of petulant bullshit that paints a
shoplifting in the US (Score:2)
there are usually limits, but it's always far and aware more than the amount of the merchandise stolen....
You're screwed (Score:2)
You need to reach a reasonable settlement with these people. They have your head on a plate. If you can point to the many other images that you have purchased from them, maybe they will be kind to you.
But before you do anything else, TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. Pay a couple hundred bucks for a consultation if that's all you have. Bring all of your records and correspondence with you to the meeting.
Asking slashdot about this is like asking Dr. Phil how
Train your clients (Score:1)
See a Lawyer . . . (Score:2)
First, I'm worried that a UK client was billed in dollars by a UK law firm.
Second, I'm not schooled on UK law, but in US law, claiming attorney's fees is not the first thing you do. The first step is to C&D the infringer. Anything else is heavy handed and requires contentious court action. This is similar to the recen
Re: (Score:2)
I have a very strict rule against infringement.
How much infringement actually happened? (Score:2)
[...] just received a $25,000 invoice from a law firm in London representing Corbis
I quoted the images in question on the Corbis site and the total would have been about $800.
The invoice in this case is probably mostly a "scare the hell out of them and get them to settle" sort of thing. Generally, copyright infringement is limited to actual damages + expenses (atty. fees). In this case, it will be $800 (what you would have paid for these images) + attorneys' billable hours + cost
Re: (Score:2)
"Generally, copyright infringement is limited to actual damages + expenses (atty. fees). In this case, it will be $800 (what you would have paid for these images) + attorneys' billable hours + cost of long distance calls (if any - they may have informed their lawyers via email). This is far, far less than $25,000."
You're lucky. FWIW, here in the US, statutory damages also apply (S504(c), if anybody's interested). The range is $750 to $30K, per the court's discretion. I believe the maximum statutory dama
How do you know the atty represents Corbis? (Score:3, Interesting)
Many attorney letters start,
"Please be advised, I represent..." without offering proof of their standing.
At the very least, this gives sufficient response to put the ball back in their court to demonstrate their representation.
(They should provide you with a corporate resolution of authorized signers and a written release/acknowledgment to the law firm from someone on that list)
Bonus points to you if what I have seen happen occurs with you--
They provide a resolution with names and the person's name signing the release isn't even on the f'ing list (very common with bank officers). Dumbass attorneys.
Delay, delay, delay. Sometimes they just go away.
If that doesn't work, don't pay, let them turn it over to a collection agency who will be happy to shut the books on it for pennies on the dollar.
Don't panic... (Score:2)
If it does come under UK law, which is most likely, then any lawsuit is unlikely. The reason is that UK courts will only aw
If you're short of content for your site (Score:2)
For example, you can just use the alt tags of a non-existent or spacer image to convey the meaning of the photo you intend to replace it with. One fun way is to use an image so obtuse that no-one in their right mind would allow it's use on a live site - the copyrighted image would easily slip some people's mind to change since it looks OK the client will put it out of mind to change, so use a non-copyrighted image that sticks out as having