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]

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.

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: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: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.