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."
that you exposed yourself by sending a letter. You should have just scrubbed the site, ignored the legal letter or sent a polite response that there was no infringing content on there (now), and forget about it. IF worse comes to worse, claim that they hacked your site and file countersuit - that'll shut them up fast. They want easy prey.
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.
Other photo houses (Getty) send out cease and desist letter and it's done
How do you know this? It happens often?
So much time wasted over such an abtract, and mostly useless concept.
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.
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.
Yeah, and that software has value is also subjective. I sell stock photos AND I develop software. For you to label either as "subjective" just indicates your myopic attitude. How is spending 400 hours to get a great photo worth any less than someone else spending 400 hours to do what they do?
One of the quirks of British law is that if someone accepts a payment "in full and final settlement" then that's the end of the matter. I suggest posting Corbis (not their law firm) a cheque for $800 (but in UK pounds) with an accompanying letter stating what it's for and including the magic phrase "in full and final settlement". If the cheque is cashed, send the lawyers a photocopy of the letter, and tell them your offer of $800 in full and final settlement was accepted and the matter is now closed. If not, it's only cost you the price of an envelope and some stamps.
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.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Yes, well, pretty much everyone who's fortunate enough to have created a gravy train will do anything to stay on it. Doesn't make it right, but it does make it common.
... we added a few, as a matter of goodwill, but called a halt when the hours started adding up. Next thing I know I get a call from their company attorney. He was pleasant enough, actually, but wanted to know why we had chosen not to fulfill our obligations. I said we had fulfilled all of them to date, that I'd be happy to prove that if he wished, and that we only wanted his employer to fulfill their obligations.
... well, he told me he'd call back. He did, and said I could drop by and pick up a check. I was more than a little surprised at the outcome, but the rest of the project went much more smoothly.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
IANAL, but
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.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
And yet, you (Robotech_Master) seem to be providing that legal advise you advocate against on Slashdot.
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 probably will understand.