Guy Sued For $4,000. Over Using $10. Pic, Sans Permission

[ScrapeBoss]

Sorry about the loss. It's a real pain when losses of this nature are incurred. In most cases, copyright actions over images are just to make some money from people. The enforcement really depends on your place of residence. For anyone living outside the US like China, who gives a shit if any attorney is filing a suit for damages over images?

 

[Typlo]

That seems like a tough fine...

 

[silentthunder]

Thanks to OP for scary topic and BH mates for counter-scams & counter-counter scams until such time, therewith, I fucking decide to use $4,000, "original", "claimfree" photos only to be scammed herewith!
Seriously though, good thread.

 

[bigwali]

So If I take a photograph, place it a site that I don't submit to the searchengines, links are made naturally by people finding my site and digging it or other means.
Can I sue google if I find my pic on images?
I didn't submit my site or give them permission to spider it.
Just because I don't have block all spiders on it, it doesn't give them permission
to invade my data. If I did that to google it would be called hacking.

Just because I leave my door unlocked it doesn't give people the right to come in and steal my furniture.

You could sue but you would probably lose just like Perfect 10 did when they sued Google for copyright infringement. The courts ruled Google Images only stores the thumbnail of the picture, and the original pictures on Google Images are stored on 3rd party servers or other computers, therefore no copyright infringement has occured.

The same argument could be used for embedding videos on websites. The actual video is stored on YouTube servers, and a website is displaying the video, but it is actually only a link to the video stored on the YouTube server. So you could get sued but you would have a strong Fair Use defense because the uploader has agreed to YouTube's Term's of Use which includes embedding videos. Any uploader can opt-out allowing their video to be embedded which would strengthen Fair Use claims. Of course, this argument assumes the uploaded video is not copyright infringed in the first place.

 

[247hustle]

cut 30% of the photo or edit it to 30% and the copyright is yours lawyer avoided

 

[britcpa]

 

[blackboxer]

3 words

Creative Commons Liscence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

could of saved you $4,000.00

 

[doomy]

Take before the image was taken down.
To the op: Im sorry for this mess you got in, purely bad luck but I must say that I could only think about how mych money can be made by using methods like this: rank pictures well, register them, use them as bait- anybody who use them- 2000$ or law suit

I think most of the big image selling sites base their entire business model around this.

Stealing images is a terrible idea, and can only end badly.

 

[darkasrzerotwo]

cut 30% of the photo or edit it to 30% and the copyright is yours lawyer avoided

Can you explain this further?

 

[krzysiekz]

------------------


wait, so youre saying that somebody placed on ad on your advertising portal and THEIR ad included a copyrighted image but YOU got sued for it?

so how do sites like craigs list, backpages and gumtree protect themselves?

surely, thats open to terrible abuse - ie

1. photographer gets friend to place ad on any of those classified sites using photographers image

2. sevveral weeks down the line, photographer employs lawyers to sue craigslist/whoever for copyright infringement as he has 'noticed' a private advertiser is using his photo in a classified ad

3. craigslist dont have a leg to stand on and have to cough up?


cant imagine that happening although the way this thread is going, it looks like that acatually IS the case. consequence of that would be an immmediate change to their business offering - i.e. images could no longer be included with adverts from that point on.

thats awful. especially for anyone with plans for their own classified site....

Interesting point. Will wait for some answers/opinions.

 

[the_demon]

I just made a thread after reading OP's post.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/blackhat-lounge/296613-10-tips-avoid-getting-sued-copyright-infringement.html

 

[wowhaxor]

Your copyrighters didn't know about copyright law which is in place since 1988?

This is why people pay money to places like istockphoto. You need permission to use any image you find on the Internet or leave yourself vulnerable, purchasing a cheap membership to a stock photo places gives you rights and a ton of quality photos you can use.

If all photos without a copyright right on them were public domain these companies wouldn't be necessary and thriving.

 

[CyberDilemma]

You could sue but you would probably lose just like Perfect 10 did when they sued Google for copyright infringement. The courts ruled Google Images only stores the thumbnail of the picture, and the original pictures on Google Images are stored on 3rd party servers or other computers, therefore no copyright infringement has occured.

The same argument could be used for embedding videos on websites. The actual video is stored on YouTube servers, and a website is displaying the video, but it is actually only a link to the video stored on the YouTube server. So you could get sued but you would have a strong Fair Use defense because the uploader has agreed to YouTube's Term's of Use which includes embedding videos. Any uploader can opt-out allowing their video to be embedded which would strengthen Fair Use claims. Of course, this argument assumes the uploaded video is not copyright infringed in the first place.

Couldn't you use this same argument to use hotlinked images? That way the photos are still on the owners' servers. You are just stealing their bandwidth at that point.

 

[bigwali]

In other news:

"How to make money by scraping images off the web

Step 1: Go to websites and find images
Step 2: Use tineye to check where the image originated
Step 3: Contact the owner of the image
Step 4: Tell the owner about the issue, and offer a resolution with $x,xxx in restitution
Step 5: If the owner agrees, hire a lawyer to get the money
Step 6: Pay the lawyer and the owner, and pocket $xxx for yourself
Step 7: See Step 1"

There is already a business model in place for this scheme. The copyright troll is called Righthaven and they go after bloggers bigtime for posting images and articles of others. Demanding $150,000 and the domain name for restitution. Google Righthaven for more info.

 

[mucea]

There is already a business model in place for this scheme. The copyright troll is called Righthaven and they go after bloggers bigtime for posting images and articles of others. Demanding $150,000 and the domain name for restitution. Google Righthaven for more info.

Righthaven seems to be 'gone' as of a few days ago. Go to their website and you'll find the domain has been 'redirected'.

 

[brutang]

Good information, I need to pass this along to my workers who design sites for me (and get content from google image search). I really appreciate the writeup.

 

[darkasrzerotwo]

You know what really sux is client expect a good hi res stock photos to be used in their product but only want to pay a cheap fee for it. So, designer has no other way other than g image.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Man, if I became a mod here, i'd title you the news man of BHW

 

[GoldenGlovez]

For websites I run without domain privacy I just set whois information as my address in China. I doubt any lawyer would bother trying to come after me in China, where frankly there is very little law regarding copyrights. On top of that, I would only respond in Chinese through e-mail if they were to even attempt. Make them pay for translation service!

 

[TheGreyMatter]

Better use some brains dude instead of paying so huge funds.
Also, if you need any HELP, just post a thread here and BHW members are there to help you out.