IMAGE COPYRIGHT ADVICE
Image Copyright Advice
There is always image copyright in any image found on the internet, or on any printed magazine or leaflet.
A2A will try to ensure no copyrighted image is used on its clients websites. Ultimately the responsibility rests with our clients.
It is in the clients interest to ensure images they use are not subject to copyright.
Do not use an image that you do not own.
Buy stock images at dreamstime.com or other image library, keep a record of it's purchase.
If a supplier says you can use their images of their products, get that statement in writing and print it off and keep it safe.
Picscout - check ownership of an image with the tool below.
Wayback Machine - Getty and others also can produce a copy of your site from years ago.
Remove your old site from 'wayback when' machine
It may be worth removing your site with the following:
Removing Documents From the Wayback Machine
The Internet Archive is not interested in offering access to web sites or other Internet documents whose authors do not want their materials in the collection. To remove your site from the Wayback Machine, place a robots.txt file at the top level of your site (e.g. www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt).
The robots.txt file will do two things:
It will remove documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
It will tell it not to crawl your site in the future.
To exclude the Internet Archive’s crawler (and remove documents from the Wayback Machine) while allowing all other robots to crawl your site, your robots.txt file should say:
User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /
Robots.txt can be used to block access to the whole domain, or any file or directory within. There are a large number of resources for webmasters and site owners describing this method and how to use it, including http://www.robotstxt.org/.
If you cannot put a robots.txt file up, read the If you think it applies to you, send a request to us at info@archive.org.
The following articles are very usefull and offers a good explanation of the situation.
You can't incur a debt unless you have consented to it. It makes them liable for damages, but it's not a debt." The amount, he says, "can only be quantified by agreement or by the judgement of a court".
continues below
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/27/internet-photography
First letter example
Dear....
Without Prejudice
Thank you for pointing out an error in having used an image given to us by a third party.
We had no indication that the image was rights protected as it had no identification or copyright mark.
This is an accidental situation for which we apologise. We have ceased and dismissed by your original request and took the image off the website immediately.
Having taken legal advice, we point out that, we have not used an image on the site for gain.
If you look at Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 - Sections 96 + 97 we fall under this category, in that we have never knowingly used an item for our website in which there was a copyright issue. We believe that Damages will not be awarded against an "innocent" defendant, i.e. one who did not know and had no reason to know that the work was under copyright.
We believe a court would look favourably upon this, we would vigorously defend such action in our local small claims court. It is not up to you to demand a fee, it would be up to a court to award you damages, please advise the normal cost of the use of such image.
As a small company we also have terms and conditions on the site, and uphold copyright issues, but would not look at such draconian issues such as inflated demands for what is in fact an honest mistake.
Yours sincerely.
Second Letter Example
Dear Sir,
Without Prejudice
We reiterate that we had no indication that the image was rights protected as it had no identification or copyright mark.
This is an accidental situation for which we have apologised. We have ceased and dismissed by your original request and took the image off the website immediately.
Having taken legal advice, we point out that, we have not used an image on the site for gain.
If you look at Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 - Sections 96 + 97 we fall under this category, in that we have never knowingly used an item for our website in which there was a copyright issue.
We believe a court would look favorably upon this, we would vigorously defend such action in our local small claims court. It is not up to you to demand a fee, it would be up to a court to award you damages, please advise the normal cost of the use of such image.
Yours sincerely
Getty Reply to above
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your email.
Copyright exists upon the moment of creation. The mere existence of the imagery protects it under copyright law. Getty Images represents the photographer who owns the copyright in these images. Getty Images is bound by contract with its contributing photographers to obtain and share the royalties payable for the use of their images and to uphold and defend their copyright in their works. Rights Managed images, such as the ones at issue, are exclusive to Getty Images and available for license only through our website. Therefore, when copyright infringement occurs, Getty Images is entitled to legal redress.
As you may know, it is the responsibility of the end user to ensure that any content that is copied, publicly displayed and/or publicly distributed does not infringe any copyrights. Regardless of your company’s intent, you are still liable for the unauthorized use of Getty Images represented content.
Although the removal of the image is appreciated, it has been visible through your commercial website. Therefore, Getty Images and its represented photographers must still receive remuneration for the prior unauthorised use. During this difficult economic time, our photographers more than ever are depending on their royalties for their livelihood.
In order to settle the matter promptly and amicably, Getty Images is willing to offer you a 20% reduction on the original settlement demand and accept GBP1082.40 gross (including 23% IRL VAT as per 01/01/2012) or GBP880.00 net in settlement if payment is received by 14 May 2013. If you are VAT registered, please inform us of your VAT number before paying the settlement amount so the VAT can be deducted.
Getty Images makes this offer without prejudice and reserves all rights and remedies available under copyright law. Getty Images shall keep the terms of this settlement confidential, except as required by law.
Kind Regards
Note on licensing letter
Dear Sir or Madam,
Whilst we apologise for the innocent use of your image, and we have removed it, we would like to explain how it has happened and that the consequence was and is provable that it was not done to in any way defraud you of your royalties.
Our webdesigners built us a website recently based on the images from our forklift suppliers, they take great care of image ownership and use and have used ' pic scout ' image tracker for quite some time to avoid any such image problems. They used the image, ' mechanic holding wrench ' from a suppliers site, and whilst you are correct the image is yours - as you can see it does not turn up as flagged as the attached screenshot shows (this was including a few minutes wait, as sometimes it's slow). Thus when the picture was used from a suppliers site it did not flag up as owned. Since Getty own the image tracker then it would seem that it would be up to you to ensure that the image flags properly.
Once again we do apologise for your copyright infringement and as you can see from the rest of our site promoting our forklifts that it was not anybodies intention.
www.gettyletter.co.uk
Statement Issued July 2011
I am a copyright solicitor and therefore enjoy all things 'copyright'. However I am concerned as to the numbers of letters that are being sent out by Getty to individuals and small businesses demanding many thousands of pounds in damages. Of course if an image has been infringed then it follows that damages must be paid. These damages must be reasonable but before you write a cheque you must put Getty to proof that they are entitled to bring a claim.If Getty is an exclusive licensee then it is given all the rights and remedies that an owner would be entitled to. However you need to see a copy of the licence. How can you settle a case without seeing the licence? That is the permission for Getty to claim infringement and demand damages. Its lawyers will not issue a claim without producing this licence. If they did they would be heavily criticised by a Judge and indeed the protocols encourage the parties to disclose documentation in pre action disclosure. You will not be penalised on costs if you did not settle the claim before you saw the licence. Getty usually refers to the confidentiality of the terms of the agreement in place but this is nonsense. You would accept a redacted licence but you need to see the licence. It is important to remember that copyright is a property right. The owner of the property is the photographer. Simple. Not Getty. Getty can bring a claim for infringement but it owns no rights in the property. Getty has no copyright in the image and therefore must produce the licence in court, if not it will lose the claim. If it is prepared to produce the licence in court why not produce it before court to avoid proceedings. Please do not pay, be reasonable and ask to see the licence.
Mr. M. Coyle