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."
duck and cover?
or perhaps bite the pillow
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
The little () about consultation is your answer. You need to talk to a lawyer.
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.
This is great info. Please mod the parent AC post up. :-)
Lock the door. And hope they don't have blasters.
Yeah. I might also add: run.
Or perhaps (in the immortal words-and voice--of Edie McClurg from Planes, Trains and & Automobiles): You're fucked.
My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
In the future you might want to place the text "FRO" (for review only) or something like that over all the images that aren't licensed. That way it's clear that the images in the mockup are not the ones to be used for the final site. I picked this up from some colleagues when I worked in print. The text was placed over all mockup images and was faint enough that it wouldn't interfere with the idea, but clear enough that anyone could read it and notice it.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Other photo houses (Getty) send out cease and desist letter and it's done
How do you know this? It happens often?
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.))
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
...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
Well, it wasn't exactly useless when the poster snarfed the content from Corbis and used it to sell a site, now, was it?
Man, no regular lawsuit experience could cause anger like that...
So I guess her divorce lawyer was better than yours eh?
My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
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.)
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.
(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 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.
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.
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.
No, your problem was not managing your art resources properly. The simplest things could be done to avoid it happening again --- for instance, any photo for which you would eventually need to pay, you can rename it to include some unique tidbit (say ".."), and then all you'd need to do is search your resource folder for that tidbit. Found anything? Then it's not cleared for deployment.
"Good news, everyone!"
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
You, or none of your designer friends, nor any of the designers reading this commend should use Corbis or any affiliated sites & services from now on.
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.
Read radical news here
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 purpose and the client didn't seem to care. It's obvious that we're in the wrong, have violated numerous laws, and owe your client at least $25,000. Please tell me your legal fees so I can cover those, too. Attached is a full accounting of my company's assets and revenue streams."
I can tell you're not an attorney because of all the things you didn't notice in the article. The client, not the Asker, is the one who received the shakedown notice. The client is the one with legal trouble and they are the ones in need of an attorney. The Asker may need one too, later, if the client (or anyone else) sends him an invoice, but the Asker hasn't received any threatening letters.
Based on what I've seen in the past -- as an interested outsider, not as an attorney -- an accused offender swiftly and voluntarily taking steps to remove infringing material is looked on very favorably by the courts. The $25,000 "invoice" is a shakedown by an outside contractor who probably has a semi-automated process that spiders for images then pastes a name in address into a boilerplate demand letter. Maybe in the UK that's a standard opening gambit. The client needs to get his advice from a professional who is qualified to act in the UK, not you or me, although I suspect I'm being more rational and realistic than you. A run-of-the-mill lawyer would probably be happy to advise the client, and even send a letter or two on his behalf, for less than $1000. Of course, if things progress, well, so do fees. One of the first things the client's lawyer will do is look at the letter that Asker send on client's behalf. If he sees it as harmless or positive he will probably send a letter to the shakedown artists (and the copyright holder) saying that the offending material was taken down, that the "invoice" is inappropriate, and the matter is now closed. The attorney will also advise the client on the actual limits of their liability.
Your gloating suggestion that Asker has "bent over, dropped your pants and decided to forgo any lube" is a fine example of why people should be asking lawyers, not Slashdotters, what to do when they need legal advice.
This is not my sandwich.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
It's been a few years since I'ver perused Corbis for images, but I thought they stuck a Corbis watermark on everything that was publicly accessable on their site.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
A business liability form with advertising injury coverage, in particular, would guard the business just in case everything goes wrong.
:)
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.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
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.
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 snapped.
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". The ability to find that picture quickly has value - But that value has nothing to do with photographers, models, art-directors, locations, props, or equipment. Just convenience.
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 think you missed the point of the G(G?)P... The FP author made a small mistake that involves no harm at all, he offered to make good, but the Dogs of War (aka "lawyers") have decided to try to get blood from a stone rather than accept his clearing the photos after-the-fact along with a small nuissance-fee as punishment. That represents the real "crime" here, not the copyright infringement.
"Hey, guys, I have this great idea - Let's ruin one our regular customers just because we can! Sure, he'll never, ever use us again, and this will likely cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run, but we have the legal high-ground!"
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
Copyright law is strict liability. "Oops" is not an excuse.
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 to roll your own Linux kernel.
many states allow a business to charge convicted shopifters an amount far in excess of the amount stolen, in order to recup their costs in having security monitor the store.
there are usually limits, but it's always far and aware more than the amount of the merchandise stolen....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
As a seasoned designer, I make a point to note that stock photo is the responsibility of the client. We can find the image that suits the design, but ultimately it is their responsibility to pay for the material. In essence, they have to supply the material. If they do not provide hi-res material to you from the photo vendor, then they have not supplied you the necessary material to complete the job. You can shelve the job until they supply the content, or you can provide them the template design and submit your bill with the instructions that indicate their responsibility.
"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."
/. article where the attorney posted the NFL blurb and it was removed: a C&D was sent to YouTube. The C&D allows the infringer to show the appropriate excuse (e.g. fair use, parody).
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 recent
Third, how could a UK firm bill that much to send a letter to your client? At least in U.S. law, criminal infringing may result in reasonable attorney's fees. Twenty-five thousand is not reasonable for an initial letter.
So, your client should see a lawyer to fix the problem. Anything else is like bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight.
However, since you are the cause for the infringing, it is possible for your client to drag you in.
However, I recommend you put some tag in the filename for these infringing images. Next time you ship a web site, you can filter out those images.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
> 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 purpose and the client didn't seem to care. It's obvious that we're in the wrong, have violated numerous laws, and owe your client at least $25,000. Please tell me your legal fees so I can cover those, too. Attached is a full accounting of my company's assets and revenue streams."
Umm, if you haven't watched SCO vs. IBM, just look at how Darl's statements are sinking SCO. This is why you don't write crazy things like that in a letter, but you get a lawyer. I know it's expensive, but lawyers don't generally respect people representing themselves and that's a sure way to get screwed.
> I can tell you're not an attorney because of all the things you didn't notice in the article. The client, not the Asker, is the one who received the shakedown notice. The client is the one with legal trouble and they are the ones in need of an attorney. The Asker may need one too, later, if the client (or anyone else) sends him an invoice, but the Asker hasn't received any threatening letters.
Right, which is why he shouldn't have gotten involved directly like that. Now who knows what sort of liability he's created, admitting to the infringement on their behalf. That's the kind of crap you pay a lawyer to handle.
Anyhow, GP is right--at least in the US, it's normal to send a C&D letter without monetary demands. Neither of us knows exactly why they're sending $25k demands, but it's probably not a good thing and not an indication that they'll settle this quietly. Which means you need the damn lawyer, not Slashdot. Besides, unless NewYorkCityLawyer comments, pretty much all of us are going to end up saying IANAL, but...
> Your gloating suggestion that Asker has "bent over, dropped your pants and decided to forgo any lube" is a fine example of why people should be asking lawyers, not Slashdotters, what to do when they need legal advice.
Agreed, but I don't read that as "gloating" I read that as "Ugh! That was a terrible idea, haven't you read _any_ of the other Ask Slashdot requests for legal advice where there were 800 threads saying GET A LAWYER NOW?"
As someone in his position, you don't want to hurt your client, which is why you shouldn't take legal matters into your own hands. About the *only* time it might be okay is if they'd sent a polite C&D with no extra demands, then you could say "oops!" let them know you removed the content and go on with life.
How do I know? I had to do that once upon a time, back in the days of Netscape Navigator 3.2 Gold, when search engines were novel and our stupid little "look at us! we just learned HTML!" personal page hit the top of the rankings.
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 (and is often obvious for being such), but since it's not customised, it *has* to be that way; it's designed with its end purpose in mind. I suspect you'd find it much harder than you think to get innocuous "business-type" images for a website from Flickr.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
General IANAL warning, etc.
[...] 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 of long distance calls (if any - they may have informed their lawyers via email). This is far, far less than $25,000.
However, your best bet for a defense in this instance is going to come in two ways:
(1) Show that the damage from the infringement was minimal: Get the website logs of this client's site, and look through it and figure out just how many people have actually viewed the images. Remember to discount the various search engine bots, yourself, your friend, and the client's employees from this count. If nobody else has ever seen an image, then no infringement occurred on that image. If only a few people have seen it, the damage can be considered minimal. While this won't get you completely out of trouble, it can help if you actually go to court (and by extension help any settlement bargaining).
(2) Show how good a client you have been for Corbis: If you've been a paid subscriber or somesuch for years, and this is the only time this sort of infringement has occurred, you have a decent good-faith defense. Have you ever purchased images from them in the past? How often? If you've got a purchase history with them, this will also help. Once again, this probably won't cause the case to drop completely, but can work in your favor.
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."
While their legal department may not handle the overseas affairs, and can do little if anything for you, this is probably because the legal firm is not considered "part of" or "under" Corbis's legal department - i.e. the have no control over what they do. What you need to do is find some way to plead your case to whoever is in charge of their relationship with the legal firm. If you have been a longstanding customer who has made several purchases from them in the past, there's a good chance your best bet would be a call to their marketing/sales department. Explain what has happened to them, tell them how it was an honest mistake you made while trying to sell their photos, and you can probably get some slack cut for you that way - the sales drone will forward the concern to the sales director, who is probably quite willing to call off the lawyers in order to keep a loyal customer.
In any case, the steps I would suggest you take are: (1) Wait for a response from the law firm for what you already sent. (2) Contact someone at Corbis who actually has some power over the contracted law firm (start with the sales department, and ask who you should talk to if they can't help you). If nothing else, see if it would be possible to purchase the $800 in images now in exchange for them dropping the suit. (3) Talk to the law firm again and tell them what you think is a reasonable settlement for the "limited" amount of infringement that occurred (lowball it a bit in case you need some bargaining room). (4) Compare the amount the (hopefully more reasonable) invoice from the law firm is against how much you think you'd spend on a lawyer + eventual settlement. If lawyer + settlement > invoice, then your path is pretty clear. (5) If nothing else works, you are stuck with the worst case scenario of going to court. Either lawyer up, throw yourself on the mercy of the court, or both. Make sure you've gone through the other channels first (and documented your efforts!), as this will show good faith to the court and can only help with whatever eventual judgment is forthcoming.
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'.
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 coercion by the government via copyright enforcement, the "competition" for the image (assuming it was already available to the public) would obviously include the potential buyer's ability to duplicate the image at zero cost. Just as water, or air, is extremely valuable and yet would be difficult to profit from selling, copies of images may be valuable while yet commanding little or no demand after the initial publication. There is nothing unfair or unjust about that.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
If it does come under UK law, which is most likely, then any lawsuit is unlikely. The reason is that UK courts will only award actual damages, plus expenses. So if the price of these images was for a permanent non-exclusive licence, then you are talking about paying damages for a 12 month term, which should be something like 8% of that figure at most, so you're talking $60 plus expenses. Hahaha. I can only assume that Corbis has instructed this firm to chase up all overseas infringement, and they're doing it in the most spectacular way they can (as lawyers tend to do). If this case did come before a British judge, I suspect he would be pretty pissed that they had not settled, given your willingness to co-operate.
[FUCK BETA]
There's lots of things you can do without using copyrighted content.
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 nothing to do with the site - a photo of your cat, or your toilet, perhaps.
This serves as a placeholder, but also every time the client looks at your site, they will be reminded that
a) there's no way the site can go live until that image is replaced and
b) they really must get the correct content to you so they don't have to look at that damn image any more
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
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 ("commercial copyright infringement") despite the fact that they could, in general, make said copies more cheaply themselves from a purely monetary point of view. As with water, the supply of such copies is essentially unlimited, and their prices derive mainly from the convenience of getting them pre-made rather than the "value" of the content to the buyer.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
...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.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
In the US Justice is blindfolded. In the UK Justice sees the scales. In Scotland, Justice is a burley dude wearing a plaid dress. In matters spanning the pond, let us reflect...What would George and Tony do? If Corbis won't bug off, then invade Bagdad.
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?