Copyrighted images?

[BasedBeyond]

I'm developing a website right now where users would email me their photos/art so I can post it on my online gallery. The conflict that I have is copyright. I know that every photo online is copyrighted, but what should I do if they send me a photo that violates a copyright?

Should I put a copyright disclaimer before they use the submission form on my website to submit their image(s)? Please help me out, it would be a bummer to end my development because of user submitted Copyright infringements.


Thanks:td:

 

[NameOmnia]

Hi J3

this is a disclaimer sample you could provide for free to your users so that both you and them won't be in trouble when using images with people/properties.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hallahan/351-SamplePhotoRelease.pdf

Some more useful ideas for you to protect your website :

http://www.docracy.com/0a9jrw1h5hi/licensing-contract-to-merchandise-images

http://imagebin.org/index.php?page=disclaimer

http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/content/disclaimer/


I hope this will be helpful. :wave:

 

[uswebdev]

Copyright infringement applies to documents too

Okay thank you all. So I'm less than a month within launch and I still need to find an example Disclaimer for my website.

Just pointing out that you can also run into a similar issue (copyright infringement) if you use another companies legal documents and just switch out their company name for yours.

And most attorneys do not know enough about copyright law to give you proper advise, but there are attorneys who specialize in this area of law in most large cities.

You may have a better foundation after you review the docs here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

And you can always spot check submissions by using the www.google.com/images 'search by image' function -- click the little camera icon in the search bar.

 

[enlytend]

Granting permission to use their photographs is exactly what Getty Images does. Their business model is to license the content that they own and represent to third parties. They are rightfully due usage fees (and penalties) from those who use their content without paying for it.

They have a whole division of lawyers whose only job is to try to shake down infringers for exorbitant fees. They have been known to go after people who legally obtained photos too (keep evidence of purchases!), and people who legally got them from a source that didn't have the right to sell them (i.e. someone uploaded a getty image to a photo sales site.)

Lots of potential issues - if you're serious about the site, why not run everything by an intellectual property lawyer? Some money up front, but fewer headaches down the road.

 

[alien51]

They have a whole division of lawyers whose only job is to try to shake down infringers for exorbitant fees.

Would they sue you outright and demand financial compensation immediately? Or would they file a DMCA to your webhosting provider first with a demand to take down the infringing material?

Most file sharing businesses out there (for example: Uploaded.net) operate on the principle that they will take down offending material if you notify them, because they have a non-liability clause that they cannot possibly examine and verify every single material sent to them.

 

[Domainace]

Would they sue you outright and demand financial compensation immediately? Or would they file a DMCA to your webhosting provider first with a demand to take down the infringing material?

Yes to the first question.

In Japan, I've been told they use a Yakuza style debt-collection service. Some poor housewife with a cooking blog will get a threatening sounding phone call demanding 1000s of dollars. And they often are intimidated into paying.

They are a vile company.

I don't know if they have ever gone to court on these fringe cases. But it's quite obvious they're collecting pretty good sums just on the threats.

Here is just one story. You can find many more:
http://modernmarketingjapan.blogspot.jp/search?q=getty

 

[alien51]

In Japan, I've been told they use a Yakuza style debt-collection service. Some poor housewife with a cooking blog will get a threatening sounding phone call demanding 1000s of dollars. And they often are intimidated into paying.

Almost sounds like my credit card company. lol

I guess that would be illegal in the United States?

 

[Domainace]

I don't know. But it explains why Getty is willing to accept low quality images that no other photo agency would accept. A photographer friend was wondering why they wanted all her worst photos. All they need is some blogger to use the image (possibly thinking that such an amateurish image would never be copyrighted) and they have another live one.

 

[alien51]

I also would have thought that for them to get you on the phone, they would have to subpoena your hosting provider to reveal your hosting account details. And if your hosting account does not contain your phone number, they would have to subpoena Visa or Mastercard to release your personal information.

So unless you are a big-time infringer, it's probably much cheaper for them to shutdown your website through your hosting provider, than pay some bounty hunter to hunt you down.

Unless of course, as you have said, criminal extortion syndicates are involved.

 

[WritersWrite]

Getty Images usually sends copyright infringers a bill in the amount of what the original license fee would have been.

In other words, they ask those who are using their images without permission to pay what they should have paid in the first place.

Based on the legal remedies available to those whose copyrights have been violated, this is an incredibly generous approach.

These small copyright infringers are a nuisance, not part of their business model, however they rightfully need to be addressed and brought to pay what they owe.

And whether one considers the cost to be exorbitant is irrelevant. Their rates are what they are so, if it is too high, do not use their content. In reality, Getty rates range from tens of dollars to thousands. Seriously, tens of dollars.

Avoiding copyright infringement is easy: Do not use anyone else's intellectual property without their permission unless you have a fair use right to do so.

Every time that you use a photo (or any other intellectual property) that you did not create yourself, you should be asking yourself who did and if your are allowed to use it.

 

[alien51]

Well, we all know the penalties and all. And we all know and agree not to use copyright stuffs that we don't own.

But legal remedies have a due process procedure, is that right to say? I mean, you can't just walk in and ask money. They have to legally challenge your non-liability clause first, before an exchange of money takes place.

For example, YouTube is showing thousands of copyright violating videos at any given day. I don't think Google pays money immediately to anyone who claims their videos were infringed on YouTube.

 

[enlytend]

Getty Images usually sends copyright infringers a bill in the amount of what the original license fee would have been.

In other words, they ask those who are using their images without permission to pay what they should have paid in the first place.

No they don't. That would be perfectly fair, but that's not what they're doing:

Getty does have some very exclusive photos selling for thousands of dollars. But licensing fees on most of these images (smallest size, like you'd use for a blog post) range from a couple of dollars to a couple hundred dollars.

As Domainace said, they send a letter (or call) demanding that the photos be removed and that the person pay the licensing fee AND thousands of dollars additional fees for damages. If the amount they demand is not paid in a very short timeframe, they threaten to proceed with a lawsuit.

This is why I recommended to the OP that they get an IP lawyer on board to make sure they have solid disclaimers, agreements, etc. in place.

Avoiding copyright infringement is easy: Do not use anyone else's intellectual property without their permission unless you have a fair use right to do so.

Agreed, but how many people don't have a clue? I'm not even talking about people who search and right-click. How many people keep track of license / attribution info for every image they use (so you can prove that you have rights to use if you get a letter claiming otherwise?) What if you buy a web site?

Client of mine recently bought a website (on Flippa or might have come with a domain name they bought - I forget) and wanted it uploaded to their hosting with a few minor changes. I checked out the images (because I'm paranoid like that) and found 3 images for sale on Getty or Getty-owned photo sites. I don't know if the previous owner had rights to use them or not - we had no image licensing information, no way to know if the seller obtained them legally or not, and no clause in a sales contract putting that responsibility on the seller/designer.. I replaced the images.

 

[WritersWrite]

But legal remedies have a due process procedure, is that right to say? I mean, you can't just walk in and ask money. They have to legally challenge your non-liability clause first, before an exchange of money takes place.

The letter notifying about the infringement and demanding payment is the legal challenge... and it is far, far better for the recipient than a lawsuit that would require the offender to hire a lawyer in order to respond and fight (or simply default by failing to do so).

If someone wants their day in court they can certainly have it by refusing to settle. But then this raises the stakes for both parties and the side that is protecting their intellectual property would be justified in going for the maximum compensation that they can get.

Submitting a bill versus filing a lawsuit should be viewed as a stroke of luck for the person receiving it.

It should also be noted that a "non-liability clause" does not protect you in the slightest from your own acts of copyright infringement.

For example, YouTube is showing thousands of copyright violating videos at any given day. I don't think Google pays money immediately to anyone who claims their videos were infringed on YouTube.

The YouTube situation is completely different than a regular website posting copyrighted content without permission (in a non-editotrial manner).

The DMCA protects services like Google from acts of infringement by their users. If a YouTube member posts infringing content, then that user is guilty of the infringement, not YouTube. And, based on the nature of the internet, this is the right call and makes perfect sense. The web is simply too vast and the content produced is simply too voluminous for a service provider to police. And, since it is in society's best interest for the internet to thrive, we give services like YouTube a safe harbor from infringement claims.

 

[alien51]

The letter notifying about the infringement and demanding payment is the legal challenge... and it is far, far better for the recipient than a lawsuit that would require the offender to hire a lawyer in order to respond and fight (or simply default by failing to do so).

Notifying about the infringement, is fine.

Demanding payment, is another matter.

I pulled this one about remedies related to infringement:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

If someone wants their day in court they can certainly have it by refusing to settle. But then this raises the stakes for both parties and the side that is protecting their intellectual property would be justified in going for the maximum compensation that they can get.

Going to court does not necessarily imply that you are refusing to settle. Because when you refuse to settle, it implies that you are acknowledging "willful" infringement.

I believe the reason why you should go to court, is to prove that your legal disclaimers entitle you to be void of copyright liability committed by your users. And not because you don't want to pay up.

It should also be noted that a "non-liability clause" does not protect you in the slightest from your own acts of copyright infringement.

We are strictly discussing acts done by your website users, not yourself as website operator. That's the reason why you had disclaimers in the first place. It's like saying you are just a landlord, and you had no idea the guy renting your house was running a drug business. Your lease contract should stipulate your non-liability.

The DMCA protects services like Google from acts of infringement by their users. If a YouTube member posts infringing content, then that user is guilty of the infringement, not YouTube. And, based on the nature of the internet, this is the right call and makes perfect sense. The web is simply too vast and the content produced is simply too voluminous for a service provider to police. And, since it is in society's best interest for the internet to thrive, we give services like YouTube a safe harbor from infringement claims.

I don't see why any other website cannot write and use a disclaimer with similar claims of non-liability.

 

[verbster]

Getty Images usually sends copyright infringers a bill in the amount of what the original license fee would have been.

In other words, they ask those who are using their images without permission to pay what they should have paid in the first place.

Based on the legal remedies available to those whose copyrights have been violated, this is an incredibly generous approach.

An incredibly generous approach? Sounds like you work for Getty. What you don't mention is how Getty seems to wait anywhere from 1-3 years before they notify users of any infringement. Then they demand the current rate they charge to license the photo for the full time of use, even if they knew after a few days or months. Generous would be notifying the photo user as soon as their continuous searching for images turns them up. That would be fair. But they don't and they aren't.

 

[BasedBeyond]

So I recently found this Gig on Fiverr where this legal document preparation specialist/ paralegal writes a customized legal disclaimer for websites. Found here: http://www.fiverr.com/ritchierich1/create-personalized-legal-disclaimers-for-your-website

BIG QUESTION:
Should I go through and use his legal disclaimer for my website or does my website idea altogether sound too risky to develop? I want to avoid lawsuits and all of that jazz, so it it's too risky to proceed, I'll have to go back to the drawing board.

Again I want to thank you all for the discussion and advice you have given me towards the issue of Copyrighted Images.

 

[alien51]

Should I go through and use his legal disclaimer for my website

Because you said you are a Non-Profit site, i guess 5 bucks for a personalized legal disclaimer notice would work.

I want to avoid lawsuits and all of that jazz, so it it's too risky to proceed, I'll have to go back to the drawing board.

You really cannot avoid receiving a lawsuit. The moment you step out of your house, someone can sue you because he doesn't like you. Even if you write an original article, someone can still sue you and claim copyright infringement. The problem with lawsuits, is not whether they are crazy accusations, but that you need to spend money for a lawyer to defend you. And that sucks. So i suggest every end-user go around window-shopping for lawyers on standby and check out how much they cost. Then save some standby money for such purpose, just in case it ever comes up.

How risky are images? They are as risky as video and music sharing. So if you are really serious and passionate about your project, i suggest you pay now for a preferred lawyer you can talk to (not just a $5 gig) and one who will tell you he is willing to defend you on any challenges on the disclaimer document he will write for you.

After all, he wrote the disclaimer, he must be willing to defend it. 5-dollar gigs won't do that. Once you pay them, they're gone. And your next lawyer "could" disavow your disclaimer because someone else wrote it.

 

[dna]

This is how you get access to copyrighted pictures:

You call your website a newspaper.
You have no ads and make no money from your website.
You make the pictures an integral part of the story.
You claim a fair access right to the pictures if challenged.

For example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ees-teenagers-turn-freakish-living-dolls.html

 

[FanCube]

In general projects like the one you are describing should be possible to run without running into major problems as long as you have some clear terms of use and an option for copyright holders to contact you combined with taking action on complaints. There are several services out there that can help you with legal advice for relative low fees. Stumbled on rocketlawyer.com and uslegal.com in a quick search.

Years ago I was hosting a series of websites all based on content provided by third parties. Occasionally I would receive take down requests of copyrighted material. I took down the material and that was that. Despite some take down requests containing "nasty" legal consequences I never had any problems. This was several years ago so not sure if practice has changed.

 

[WritersWrite]

You have no ads and make no money from your website.

It is worth noting that fair use does not preclude ads and/or profits. Newspapers, news broadcasts, magazines, books, and documentaries can all be for-profit ventures and make money while still relying upon fair use when relevant.

 

[dna]

It is worth noting that fair use does not preclude ads and/or profits. Newspapers, news broadcasts, magazines, books, and documentaries can all be for-profit ventures and make money while still relying upon fair use when relevant.

I believe that you are right about that.
But if you lose a lawsuit because you infringed on a copyright
on a commercial website, you can be accessed punitive damages,
in addition to actual damages. If your website is non-commercial
and "educational" or "informational," you can only be accessed actual damages,
which must be proved, can be rather difficult to prove,
and it probabily isn't worth the trouble.