Anti-Infringement Company Caught Infringing On Its Website

danomac writes "Canipre, a Canadian anti-infringement enforcement company, has been using photos on their official website without permission. This company hopes to bring U.S.-style copyright lawsuits to Canada, and they are the company behind Voltage's current lawsuits. It says right on their website, 'they all know it's wrong, and they're still doing it' overlaid on top of the image used without permission. Multiple photos from different photographers are used; none of them with permission. Canipre's response? 'We used a third party vendor to develop the website and they purchased images off of an image bank,' they said, trying to pass the blame to someone else. Some of the photos were released under the Creative Commons, meaning they could have used the photos legally if they'd provided proper attribution."

Comments

Does this surprise anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this sort of behavior still surprise anyone? The corporate world believes that it is immune from petty things like laws that apply to the rest of us. We've tacitly accepted "oh, some 3rd party messed up, not us" for so long that this is -- and will remain -- the norm (until governments start aggressively targeting corporations for violating the law).

Re:Does this surprise anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not surprising at all. The parasites and thieves that use this business method - extortion and threats of lawsuits over usage of IP that doesn't actually belong to them - tend to be all about threats over IP usage, and not actually care in the least about other people's IP unless it's in a way that they can get money from.

Re:Does this surprise anyone?

[lightknight]

Not really. Think about it: businesses want website work done by the cheapest bidder. Who are the cheapest bidders? Well, there are hobby programmers, professional programmers doing some moonlighting, and a mega-ton of amateur / foreign programmers. The amateurs are unaware of the legal issues surrounding repurposing an image from Google Images...and foreign programmers do not care, as their country probably laughs at the idea of copyright violations. All this so some business, that 'really is going to make it big, honest,' can have a 40-page eCommerce website with the latest wizbang technologies for under $200.

It's kind of like when that guy offers to sell you a new Apple MacBook Air for only $200...and you buy it. You know that there's something funny about the situation, you know that $200 is awfully low for a website / new MacBook Air, but you figure, hey, I'm getting a great deal, and if I don't ask any questions, maybe I can get away with this. But deep down inside, you know that what you bought is probably 'hot' or that someone got royally screwed to get you that deal. But better them than you, right?

So where does this leave this company? Well, if the police are involved, they're going to get fined. They're protesting that they didn't know...but like a 'hot' MacBook Air, chances are they 'knew,' but chose not to 'know.' I believe there is actually something...some law...that the police have that covers this situation...doesn't come immediately to mind, but it does cover these kinds of circumstances.

Now, I could be wrong. They could have paid top dollar over what the local professional firms are charging, and got screwed. Or they could have just relied on it being a common business practice (safety in numbers) as a defense if it ever came up.

Disclaimer: I am a deeply bitter web developer, who has seen idiocy both in my own work, and in the actions of others.

Re:Does this surprise anyone?

[Tanktalus]

I don't find it fucked up at all. This is expected behaviour. And it's not because it's coming from the very copyright trolls who want to better enforce these laws, it's because they're human like the rest of us (I can hear the collective gasp from here). They naturally treat digital media the same as the rest of us do - casually. Because there is no marginal cost - the same reason the rest of us have.

They, like many people, think that authors/artists should receive payment for their activities (instead of just for activities that their customers attribute some marginal value to), but, again, like many people, fail to see the disconnect that they prove with their own actions. We all do this - we say one thing, but when it comes time to do it, we take the easy way out, we cut corners. And then fail to see how hypocritical we are. However, most of us do this over trivial things and aren't trying to create a media circus around us about it. That doesn't mean we are less hypcritical, it means we just aren't caught, and the repurcussions are smaller.

All this does is provide another example of why they're wrong.

Re:Does this surprise anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

We all do this - we say one thing, but when it comes time to do it, we take the easy way out, we cut corners. And then fail to see how hypocritical we are.

Speak for yourself. Some of us either wouldn't do this in the first place, ideally - or we'd be horrified to find out that we have done this, and would take whatever steps were necessary to correct it and prevent its reoccurrance. What we *wouldn't* do is excuse it, cover it up, and justify it on the basis that lots of people visibly do the same (like you are doing). What other people do or don't do does not excuse/justify what I do.

Perhaps *you* are a hypocrite. That confession is yours to make, or not make. That's your choice and I respect it as such. But do not pretend to speak for all human beings. That is supreme arrogance.

Re:Does this surprise anyone?

[djlowe]

Hi,

The corporate world believes that it is immune from petty things like laws that apply to the rest of us.

The corporate world believes that, because it *is* immune to the rule of law, especially here in the US. Having bought off politicians, who then create laws to benefit them, how could they believe otherwise?

(until governments start aggressively targeting corporations for violating the law).

That will never happen: Governments are now so co-opted by corporate interests that they are, in effect, simply tools for them, to further their goals.

The game isn't just rigged, it's now completely controlled. The people that governments were created to represent are now ignored, for the most part, and all of your representatives are corrupt, in one way or another.

Sad, but true.

But, you ALL deserve it: You've gotten exactly what you deserve, here in the US: By your neglect, lack of attention, care, towards your government, at all levels, you've allowed this to happen.

The US was founded upon one simple idea: The rights of the individual should be paramount. The Constitution, its Amendments, were crafted towards that. And of course, it's not the exact fault of any one of you reading this that this has failed. Rather, it's the culmination of YEARS of work, on the part of the greedy, the power-hungry, the mad, to erode the foundation of our country, which was, and IS: The belief that WE, as human beings, CAN, and SHOULD, be able to be free, to live our lives, exercise our skills, knowledge and intelligence to benefit ourselves, our families, our friends, first and foremost,as good people, kind people, with the idea that, in so doing, as good, decent human beings, we would ALL benefit, as we did so, EACH of us, then, now, and in the future, as we lived, trusted, and grew.

Our Founding Fathers created something beyond themselves, and gave it to us, and we as a people, as citizens, neglected it, let it pass into the hands of people that care only for themselves. That framework, as crafted and captured, however imperfectly, within the US Constitution and its Amendments, to permit us our lives, liberties, our pursuit of happiness, has been pre-empted by those that we've elevated by election, time and time again, to the point where such election is no longer under our purview or control.

We are now a nation of servitude, indebted by design, by laws crafted to create and ensure such.

But, all is NOT lost, even at this late date. Trust yourselves, and as you do so, believe in the gift of your life, each of you. And as you do so, KNOW that you share this moment in time, with so many others, so gifted, and that while life in general may not be fair, nor kind? You, each of you, can help make it so, if you only choose to do so.

Ignore those that promote fear, so that they may control you. They cannot help you, and seek only your subjugation. They want you to be afraid, so that they can offer the hope of release from that. Security, if you only give up your liberties, your free will, to them.

Theirs is the certainty that comes from slavery, and you'll only know it, when it is too late to mourn what you have lost.

Regards,

dj

Re:Does this surprise anyone?

[Tanktalus]

And this... is a surpremely arrogant self-delusional response. If you can't admit your faults, that doesn't mean you don't have them. We all do. We all have our areas of extreme intelligence/specialty, and areas of extreme ignorance. Only the supremely ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.

Of course, you completely missed the point as well, too focused on your righteous anger that someone called you a hypocrite, like everyone else.

The point is that since the behaviour they are so opposed to is just simple human behaviour, and that this is the marketplace we're talking about (they want us to buy their offerings even though we place no value on them, that's the marketplace), they're simply wrong, and they, themselves, are the evidence of it.

I'm not justifying their hypocracy. I'm pointing out that it, too, is completely normal, and thus not surprising. If you're surprised at it, it's most likely due to your denial of your own hypocracies, no matter how small. Only once you admit to your own normalness at hypocracies can you stop being surprised at this type of behaviour and then possibly find an antidote to it.

That they try to dodge their responsibility for behaving hypocritically shows that they, like you, are in denial of their own hypocracy. The difference is that they are having it pointed out to them very specifically, whereas with you I'm being general since I obviously don't know who you are. But you're human, I'm assuming, so that means that you therefore must be ignorant in some facets of life, like the rest of us. You must be tempted to act other than how you wish at times, and you must fail at that temptation at times. That's guaranteed. It's part of being human.

This dodge of responsibility also shows how complete their faith in their business model is, that they attempt to rationalise away and trivialize their misdeed instead of learn from it. While this, too, is normal, and thus unsurprising, again, that doesn't make it acceptable.

Maybe that's part of your point, too, that I'm somehow saying that just because it's unsurprising due to its normalcy it must therefore be acceptable. No. Just because one can understand a thing doesn't mean they have to agree with it or condone it. Just because I can understand that they, like myself, are hypocrites, doesn't mean I have to accept or condone their, or my, hypocracy. But understanding it may give an opportunity to combat it. Telling them they're wrong to their faces obviously isn't working.

$5k limit

[Citizen of Earth]

The limitation of liability in Canadian cases is $5k for all infringement in a court case for non-commercial copyright infringement, but the more likely "get" is just $100. When their first "successful" case goes through the court system with a judgement of $100, it will make the news headlines and their business model will be destroyed.

Re:$5k limit

[MightyMartian]

The point of this is to frighten the foolish into paying. The foolish will not be aware that for the price of a letter from a lawyer stating "Send all further correspondence to the Firm of XXXX, YYYY and ZZZZ" (the first time I used a lawyer to do that, it cost me $150), these copyright trolls will go away. This is about extorting money from those ignorant of the legislative limits to damages.

Re:$5k limit

[MightyMartian]

Look at this way. If you get a letter from anyone threatening legal action and demanding some sort of a payment to avoid it, you are a fool not to seek legal council. Whether this is a copyright troll, or a mean-spirited neighbor, even if you can't afford a lawyer, you can't afford not to retain one.

Re:$5k limit

[ganjadude]

I would say you are a fool to not just throw the letting in the trash and forget it ever happened. Unless you get served, you have no legal obligation to even acknowledge the existence of the company let alone the letter they sent out.

Re:$5k limit

[Em Adespoton]

um if you can't afford a lawyer then you can't afford to retain one.

Lawyers are only for the rich, if your not rich you are going to get screwed.
Same goes for health insurance. if your rich enough that you don't need health insurance you can actually afford to pay for it.

I presume you're talking about the US -- this is all happening in Canada, where everyone has health insurance and cases like this would go to small claims court where you have to represent yourself, and loser pays (no lawyers fees involved).

The fact that these would end up in small claims is why their campaign for bulk suits will fail... that and the fact that Canadians have a very different cultural view of using/abusing the court system (which is already overloaded) than is generally held in the US -- and that includes judges in the system.

Re:$5k limit

[ledow]

The point is that threatening legal action costs the person you're threatening. Not everyone even has a few hundred dollars to retain a lawyer no matter how briefly. Yes, you might "get it all back" but at great risk even if you are completely innocent and the charges are groundless.

A threatening letter from a lawyer doesn't have to go through another expensive lawyer. Sure, if you try to get clever, you can dig yourself in deeper, but the fact is that if you can't afford to fight the case, then you sure as hell can't afford to do anything at all - even the simplest of letters from your lawyer will not make the case go away every time, but will cause huge bills unless you find a no-win, no-fee lawyer.

Courts are quite reasonable in this regard. You just write back a letter that says "I have received your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. I believe it to be without merit." (or similar). That's it. Just send it back. Let *them* take *you* to court if you're sure you're innocent. There, THEY have to prove YOU did it. With expensive lawyers and to a legal standard. And once you get there, junior lawyers will often jump for the chance to advise on a case for free. Once it's in court, your legal fees will be paid if you're victorious and it will be stupidly expensive if not so you have nothing to lose. Hell, if you are forced to take out a loan to hire a lawyer, it can often happen that the other side has to pay the loan too. And you will KNOW that it's time to hire a lawyer or face worse problems.

However, before it gets to court, there's no point settling unless you are guilty (and sometimes not even then) as it will only be to your detriment. Settlement paperwork often has clauses that say you were guilty and accept that you did it. It's then an irrevocable fact of law that you can't ever contest. This is also why "no comment" exists, and why you have the right to say nothing when arrested, and why you SHOULD say nothing until a lawyer arrives. However, if you are innocent, there's no harm in saying "No, I didn't do that, etc." By letter, being silent is easily confused with ignorance, disregard, attempts to evade justice, etc. so you just write back and say, in effect, "Nope".

Even if settle only to get away from the case, you are forever taking responsibility for that event. If it later comes up in another case that "if you did X, then you must have done Y" (i.e. if you downloaded that tune at that time on that day, then that MUST have been you driving your car past your house a minute earlier, etc.) then you are stuffed.

Until something lands in court, you don't need a lawyer. It may be prudent if you can afford it, but lots of people can't. And in the same way you don't need a lawyer to go over your terms and conditions of every service you use, or approve everything you say to a sales person, you don't need a lawyer in the early stages of response to threats like that.

I have been threatened with court several times. Funnily, it's never actually happened.

First, over a mobile phone contract (with phone) that never arrived at my door, was never signed by me, and I phoned up to REPORT IT MISSING / STOLEN. They wanted to force me to pay for the contract (for the whole year!), pay for the missing phone, pay for any replacement, etc. They threatened all sorts, in writing and on the phone. I wrote back, stated my side, and let them get on with it.

I can see it from their point of view - I ordered a phone, it might have arrived and I've done a runner with it. Sure. I get that. It's a valid case that there might be a simple answer to or that might need taking to court to get to the facts of the matter.

They harassed me for a month with letters and phone calls and after a while, I just stopped answering or answered only with "Sorry, your company has threatened me with legal action. Therefore, I will not discuss the issue."

In the end, I had the bank force a refund of my money that they'd taken (with zero problems, actually, it took only ten mi

OK, Here's What Needs to Happen Next

[CanHasDIY]

Every artist with any IP on the web should send letters to Canipre, informing them that they will be sued for potential copyright infringement if they do not fork over $7,500 immediately.

In other words, give them a heaping helping of their own medicine.

Re:OK, Here's What Needs to Happen Next

[gandhi_2]

The Canadian way:

Lobby your local Canadian MP to place a tarrif on all Corporate websites by pixel. The tarrif goes into a fund which is paid to Canadians who own cameras.

Re:OK, Here's What Needs to Happen Next

[statusbar]

They haven't said which image bank they used. It doesn't matter how they got ahold of stolen material, right? The photographers need to sue the infringing party. The infringing party can then sue the image bank or the employee or whoever was responsible.

The essence of the pigopolist's moral compass

[idontgno]

"If you aren't paying me, it's wrong. If I'm not paying you, it's just sharp business."

Canpire

[kinthalas]

I see it's spelled "Canipre", but one flip and it's Canpire. Canada-vampire. Canpire.

For a copyright organization. That wants to pull fees from everyone for ever.

Did no one think of this?

Re:Canpire

[gandhi_2]

Cool anagram, bro.

And then they posted the complaint..

[QuasiSteve]

And then they posted the complaint about it on their website and publicly ridiculed the copyright holders while leaving the material up, after moving it to a different server, citing that they're not actually hosting the files so the copyright holders should complain with whoever owns random-server-in-the-Seychelles, right?

Oh. They removed the images. Well, crap.

Still, hypocrits! Clearly they condone piracy and I feel justified in downloading Tears of Steel through TPB just now!

Re:And then they posted the complaint..

[Zaelath]

Yeah, no. If you're going to be holier-than-thou, you need to actually be holier. Just because American politicians can campaign on family values then take their mistress on a shagging holiday, then still get re-elected after a contrite "sorry I got caught", doesn't make it less hypocritical.

Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, that's just your straw man.

No big deal

[hduff]

It's OK when the champions of rights actually abuse and ignore those same rights when honoring those rights is inconvenient for them because, you know, they are champions of those rights.

Move along, citizen, there is nothing to see here.

Re:No big deal

[lucm]

It's OK when the champions of rights actually abuse and ignore those same rights when honoring those rights is inconvenient for them because, you know, they are champions of those rights.

Move along, citizen, there is nothing to see here.

It's called the Jack Bauer principle

Re:No big deal

[ganjadude]

It is the same thing as the FBI and IRS going after capone for tax evasion. You go with what you can. yes there are better things (in our slashdot minds) to go after them for, but if you can go after them for breaking the same laws that they claim to be going after others for breaking, it really throws a wrench in things. Capone killed people, sold (at the time) illegal booze and probably numerous other illegal activities, but in the end, it was taxes that took him down, because eventhough it was arguably the tamest of his crimes, it was the one they could make stick.

Re:No big deal

[Ignacio]

Sure, but if you're going to throw the book at them, make sure you've highlighted all the relevant sections first.

Why isn't it plausible?

[DNS-and-BIND]

I, for one, find this an eminently plausible explanation. I used to produce unique content, and found people ripping me off all the time. Every time I contacted the site owner, they were genuinely unaware that they had infringed. Either their worker had copied & pasted, or the company they hired for the website copied & pasted. Usually it just took a polite letter to get the infringing material taken down, and the other site owner replied that the guilty party had been scolded or fired.

Ah, but here we are: a story that we want to believe is true. It fits so perfectly! Copyright is such a Slashdot pet issue, the villain is already cast in the role, all that's needed is for everyone to play their parts in the crowd for the Two Minutes' Hate. Remember this the next time the media sets up a villain for a fall and you're standing there saying, "Hey, hey, hey! Why I am the only one that notices they're obviously ignoring this part of the story because it doesn't fit their narrative!"

Re:Why isn't it plausible?

[Sique]

Of course it is plausible that a firm whose business is copyright has no clue about copyright.

Re:Why isn't it plausible?

[ganjadude]

its also plausible they just told you what you wanted to hear to make you go away, knowing the entire time they took your work

Re:Why isn't it plausible?

[vux984]

Of course its plausible. It happens all the time and yes it usually just requires a polite letter to fix the issue.

That's PRECISELY the point. This companies entire business model is to go after people who make the same sort of slip they themselves made and threaten them with giant extortion style lawsuits with settlement offers to extract a payment.

Yet, when its pointed out that they have made the very same of slip up on their own website, suddenly an "oops somebody else did it, we didn't know, we'll take it down" is supposed to be ok?

Do you think they accept that sort of response when they sue someone else for exactly the same thing?

Not only are they "the villain" but they appear to be a pretty hypocritical one too.

It's a trap!

[Tamran]

I believe this is a trap to get everyone to enforce full justice in order to give them a case study for which to use as a basis for future lawsuits.

Tread carefully folks.

Is this unusual?

[wisnoskij]

Or do most websites have at least some infringing content?

On shifting the blame

[mark-t]

Trying to shift the blame to somebody else does not diminish one's own involvement in the situation. Much like knowingly purchasing stolen property is crime, knowingly possessing works that are known by the possessor to be infringing on copyright (that is, any copies that can reasonably be known to be unauthorized, and are also known to not fall under any exception covered by fair dealing) is also quite actionable by law.

So really, their best course of action is to simply identify the third party that they obtained the infringing content from, because at least then the regular penalty for infringement would be applied to the third party and they themselves could then at least argue that they did not previously realize they were infringing (they would still lose license to use the works, however, since they would still be infringing, and if they continued to try to use them, they would be guilty of knowingly possessing infringing content).

Website is not even compliant with provincial laws

[flood78]

As they are based in the province of Quebec, they must have a French version of their website. It's the law and they seems not caring about it at all. There is not even a "Under construction page". Then why they would care about the owner of the pictures?!