# My boss is learning a lesson in licensing today.



## bentcountershaft (Mar 27, 2012)

About a year and a half ago my boss hired a company to build a website for the company.  I didn't work in the office at the time, I was a tech, so this was all done without my help or input (thankfully).  In the site are five or six stock photo shots that the website design people provided.  

Fast forward to this morning and I open a letter from Getty Images.  Well, more than a letter of course, a bill and take down or pay for licensing request.  The bill, which is $1310.75, only covers the penalty.  Licensing for further use will cost extra and I'll have to call for a quote.  

I was hoping to talk to our design people and get a copy of their license agreement.  They played stupid and claimed Getty sent these notices out all the time to see if any one would pay them.  I gave them Getty's catalog number on the photo and he said he would have to check and call me back.  Afterwards I found the image on Getty's their site and it was pretty obvious how they had stolen it and cropped out the watermark.  

According to our contract with the web people, it was their responsibility to select and pay for any stock photos.  Of course as far as Getty is concerned, my company is the one legally responsible for the bill.  Probably will end up having to pay and then go after out web people for reimbursement.  Either way, it's going to be interesting.  Hopefully I can find replacements for that and all the other images on the site as I'm sure they were stolen too and just haven't been noticed yet.

Anyway, just thought I would share.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 27, 2012)

Vewwwwwwwy intewesting...


----------



## LRYoung (Mar 27, 2012)

I wish I could say I was surprised. But photos are so easy to steal, and so hard to track down.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 27, 2012)

Interesting indeed.  I honestly don't know how they found it, not that I was trying to hide it or anything.  The image is pretty nonspecific, just a narrow band of grass that is used as a kind of border on the bottom of the page on our site.  I don't think our SEO people are THAT good to have us come up in that many google searches.

Here's a link to the one on Getty's site.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 27, 2012)

TinEye, etc.,etc..

TinEye Image Search Engine - Idée Inc. - The Visual Search Company


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 27, 2012)

Really? They used a stock image of grass, and a totally blown out sky? 

That's ****ing stupid. Anyone on the staff for the company you work for (especially you) could have gone outside and taken a photo exactly like that with a Kodak Easyshare, rather than jack the image from Getty. Epic fail on the website designer's part (if it was their idea to use that image).


----------



## Scuba (Mar 27, 2012)

wow that is interesting.  Kinda more interesting since it is nothing special when it comes to the image.  (Don't take that as any implication towards the copyright issue...still copyrighted and they are entitled to that)


----------



## tirediron (Mar 27, 2012)

Let us know how this turns out.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 27, 2012)

Not sure how it will shake out.  My boss spoke to our site people and they said they would take care of it directly with Getty's so he faxed them the info we had.  I guess as long as they send us documentation that Getty's won't come after us all's well that ends well as they say.  They are supposed to have another grass pic on our site by the end of the day.  

As far as the other shots on the site, I've tracked down all but two of them and we have license to use them (they're provided by our industry consortium for us to use for advertising) so we're looking good so far on that front.  I just have to dig through all of their free use images to find the others.

I'm curious as hell about how it happened.  I mean these guys build lots of sites and evidently provide lots of pictures.  I can't imagine they would be dumb enough to just steal an image.  Maybe someone else stole it and put on a free use stock site or something?  No idea and I guess there's really no need for speculating on my part.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Mar 27, 2012)

I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 27, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.



Wow!

I read your post and my first, and only, thought was that you had balls. Huge balls.

Either that or you are totally braindead.

After a few seconds to think some more about it, I'm going with possibility #2.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 27, 2012)

My company isn't really interested in doing business that way, especially over such a small amount of money.


----------



## Scuba (Mar 27, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.



Seriously?  So you don't care about stealing other peoples work?  That's cool I guess...nice ethics


----------



## RobertEd (Mar 27, 2012)

Hmm what seems the most interesting to me are the conflicting frames of mind and attitudes over copyright. It's displayed pretty well here in the exchange between  cloud and shooter and exemplified by the actions of the initial web designers. 

I can see both sides of the issue but I stand on the pro-copyright side of the fence. 

What I don't understand is how some cultures grew up so many people worldwide in conflict with what I see as being both common sense and common decency. I got my first look at that during the whole napster thing and all the public exchanges with the copyright holders - like Metallica.  Or maybe I just focused on that particular issue so intensely because one of the members is a family friend.  No matter why tho, it sure was an eye-opener to another side I hadn't seen before.

When I first looked at it I thought it was nothing more than thieves attempting to proclaim theft to be moral and just. But in fact when one looks further into the issue it's mostly a group of people who don't believe in possession and therefor the individual rights one has concerning possessions.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 27, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.



You're a moron. Sorry, but it's true. 

You were the one who had "realtors" in their URL or something right? That's what created the trademark infringement, but of course you didn't exercise due diligence and find that out PRIOR to purchasing the domain. 

Who wants to place bets on your website failing hardcore due to your lack of organization, legal research, and poor planning? 

Why don't you go buy a boat and become a pirate off the Somalian coast? That would probably be far more lucrative.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 27, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.


Based on your rather perverse thought-process, I find myself unable to put any faith in your "doubt".  That aside, good luck with this way of doing business.  It should work out just fine for you.  Until that is, you go against a company like Little Trees or similar who will take you to the mat solely on principal and irrespective of cost to themselvese


----------



## shootermcgavin (Mar 27, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> shootermcgavin said:
> 
> 
> > I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.
> ...



And you're a worthless douche but I keep those thoughts on the inside.  I know what I'm doing, and my websites are just a fun source of income.  I know more about business than you will know in your entire life.  Sorry, but it's true.  Even if all my websites get taken over, I have over 300 so I doubt that possibility.  But lets say it happens, they will get put up on another server the next day and I'll still be making money off them with a slightly different web address.  Or if for some reason there was a copyrighted image, a new image.  I could care less what some web builder chooses for an image as long as it looks good.  It actually wasn't the "realtor" site but if it was I still made more money from the site than the cost of the domain.  Unfortunately a small minded business person like yourself wouldn't realize that.  It's ok some people can be the man, and some people have to work for him.  I don't mind you being my *****.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 27, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > shootermcgavin said:
> ...



Ultimately an idiot like yourself is destined to live life through a courtroom. 

GFYS, with a rake.


----------



## IgsEMT (Mar 27, 2012)

wow
thanks for sharing!


----------



## tirediron (Mar 27, 2012)

*Okay, okay... let's back off the personal attacks.  It's clear that copyright law is a lot more important to some people than it is others.  *


----------



## matthewo (Mar 27, 2012)

Lol, classic internet forum fun


----------



## Crollo (Mar 27, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Why don't you go buy a boat and become a pirate off the Somalian coast?



And collectively get blown up by a navy ship. No really, happens all the time.


----------



## matthewo (Mar 27, 2012)

Funny to hear about a few of those pirates, then never again on the news.

If it was up to me i would hire some of those deadliest catch guys give them a big ship outfitted with big guns and make an hbo show.

Hell make money and kill some pirates.... win win


----------



## mjhoward (Mar 27, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > shootermcgavin said:
> ...



I'm sure KmH will be along shortly to put you in your place.  You cannot claim to have any 'business sense' when you operate illegally and illegitimately.  In this regard, you are clueless and one day it will catch up with you.  What you're doing really isn't any different than if someone ran HTTrack on all your sites, served them on their own static IP, then redirected all the traffic from your URL to their own, which would be quite easy.


----------



## orljustin (Mar 28, 2012)

LRYoung said:


> I wish I could say I was surprised. But photos are so easy to steal, and so hard to track down.



They aren't that hard to track down.


----------



## orljustin (Mar 28, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I can't imagine they would be dumb enough to just steal an image.  Maybe someone else stole it and put on a free use stock site or something?  No idea and I guess there's really no need for speculating on my part.



You'd be surprised how dumb some people are.  And a professional designer who uses images from a "free" site is just as dumb.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Mar 28, 2012)

I would consult a lawyer and then weigh the costs of that versus the bills owed. Pretty sad on the web designers part. Its hard to find good help any more.


----------



## CCericola (Mar 28, 2012)




----------



## KmH (Mar 30, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.



It is hardly stupid and worthless to try and police the Internet, as you found out. The Internet is little different from real life, chaos results if policing isn't done.

The company was using the images for promotion/advertising so they could make money.
At any rate making money actually has zip to do with civil copyright infringement. If the company did make some money by infringing the images then the copyright owners attorney could try and recover those profits by filing a civil infringement action. In the case of a willful infringement that entails making money, USC 18 may apply (criminal copyright infringement).

The company apparently ownes the web site the infringed images were on and is indeed exposed to the possibilty of having to answer an infringement action.

Most criminals are easily able to justify their actions in their own minds, and a lot of white collar crime results in punishments that are little more than a slap on the wrist.

I posted a link to a recent copyright infringement action in the US District Court for Central District of California, Western Division, that was noted on a differnt photography forum. 
The photographer had licensed an image to a company. The company exceeded the terms of the license by having a designer use the image to make them a new logo they then started using on several different web sites.
The designer Mason Bay Media defaulted (didn't show up in court) on the subsequent infringement action filed against him. The judgement against the media company owner/designer, Todd Dorff, was for the full willful infringement statutory amount allowed - $150,000, plus the photographer's attorney fees and court costs. 

It is my understanding the photographer has now settled with the company that exceeded it's use license, for an undisclosed sum. Had they gotten a license to use the image in a new logo in the first place, it would have cost them about $50,000. You can bet the out of court settlement cost them quite a bit more than $50,000, but less than the 4 infringement actions (potential $600,000 + attorney/court costs) that had been filed against them they had little hope of winning.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 30, 2012)

I can't believe it took Keith three days to post in this one.  I had given up on you.  I figured your mod duties had slowed you down or something.


----------



## CCericola (Mar 30, 2012)

He's gettin old.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 30, 2012)

I kinda thought that went without saying.


----------



## CCericola (Mar 30, 2012)

oooOOOOOHH Quick Keith, Ban him!


----------



## snapcult (Mar 30, 2012)

Fun read. I made almost ten grand last year going after people for using my images... What did it cost me? Nothing more than doing a screen capture and passing it on to my IP lawyer who works on contingency. Right now we are going after a pretty big website who used 97 of my images for about three years.

I use a program called TinEye Reverse Image Search to do a reverse image search.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 30, 2012)

97?  Damn!


----------



## snapcult (Mar 30, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> 97?  Damn!



Yeah we tried to deal with them without going to court and the company in question hired a third party to represent them. Now we're filling a federal complaint so they will have one more chance to make an offer and compromise before it goes before a judge. If they fail to make a suitable offer the judge will for sure take that into consideration when briefing the jury. On most of the cases that go federal they award close to 20K per image... Can't wait to see how it turns out. 20K x 97 images plus interest for the three years of usage could be pretty nice.


----------



## NedZ (Mar 30, 2012)

Apperently there are lot of amateurs doing web design and having no idea of copyright laws. It's a shame.


----------



## NedZ (Mar 30, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I highly doubt your company can be held liable in court.  You weren't make money off the image and didn't even place it up in the first place.  I just got a trademark infringement thing for one of my websites and you know what I did?  Nadda eventually it went to arbitration and they took control of the site, but who cares I've got a clone site up already and they can keep doing that and spending thousands on lawyers.  The internet is an uncontrollable beast, wasting time and money trying to police it is stupid and worthless.


And how would you feel if someone took your car and rented it or sold it without your permission and knowlege? And did the same with your house? And then stole your SS# and spent thousands of dollars that you had to re-pay?


----------



## snapcult (Mar 30, 2012)

NedZ said:


> Apperently there are lot of amateurs doing web design and having no idea of copyright laws. It's a shame.



Yeah, they think Google image search is a free archive.


----------



## KmH (Mar 30, 2012)

NedZ said:


> Apperently there are lot of amateurs doing web design and having no idea of copyright laws. It's a shame.


The guy in the story I mentioned was no amateur.

He likely defaulted because his attorney told him honestly that he had zero chane to win or even mitigate the damage award and fighting a losing battle would just cost him even more money.

US Copyright law is federal law, so federal court is the *only* place copyright actions are heard.


----------



## snapcult (Mar 30, 2012)

KmH said:


> NedZ said:
> 
> 
> > Apperently there are lot of amateurs doing web design and having no idea of copyright laws. It's a shame.
> ...




Yep and federal judges get mighty pissed at companies who take advantage of photographers and don't settle out of court with an offer and compromise when caught... Can't wait for my day in court, all my images were filed with the copyright office and had my copyright right on the image and were still stolen.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Mar 31, 2012)

It happens all of the time. I think a lot of the web designers just play stupid .... Knowing what they are doing and figure it's worth the risk. I know several designers that do it over and over. 
Stealing is stealing even if it's an image on the net.....
I also know a designer who finds out who's images they are and calls and asks permission. You would be shocked how many people are flattered and give permission for free. It doesn't hurt to ask......


----------



## RobertEd (Mar 31, 2012)

snapcult said:


> Fun read. I made almost ten grand last year going after people for using my images... What did it cost me? Nothing more than doing a screen capture and passing it on to my IP lawyer who works on contingency. Right now we are going after a pretty big website who used 97 of my images for about three years.
> 
> I use a program called TinEye Reverse Image Search to do a reverse image search.



Hehe, It can't even find my avatar:

0 results - TinEye

Nor the doggy I uploaded two or three days ago:

0 results - TinEye


----------

