Slashdot Mirror
Violated Copyright Law — Now What?
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."
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."
I should have been more specific about telling them about the site hacking - only allege it and that you may sue them, not that you will. Otherwise it will be misrepresentation (which they can sue you for) if you don't follow through. This is wholly a tactic to get the vultures looking elsewhere, don't dig yourself deeper. Don't write them a letter, make a phone call that is not recorded - do not have it documented. Documentation is bad. If you have to write a letter - use weasel language - "you may have", "may have to look into further" - nothing concrete.
...and neither are more people on Slashdot. And even those who are would probably disclaim that they can't provide you with legal advice.
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.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Like so many others here, IANAL. However, I do have one thing to add that seems to have been missed: the legal actions so far have occurred in the UK. UK copyright law is different to US copyright law in that we don't have statutory damages. The insanely high demands are not legal in the UK: if you could have licensed the images for $800, $800 is the highest award a UK court will make to them. Plus their lawyers fees.
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.
why is th answer to everything "talk to a lawyer", and the first thing a lawyer says is "dont talk to them diretc, it must go through me. no comment".
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.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
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.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Not True.
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.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.