Copyright Continued

wikipedia - patent act

wayback when machine

more articles

women in bus

more

Pic scout image tracker 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.

We consider this matter closed.

Remove from 'wayback when' machine and robots

Getty and others also can produce a copy of your site from years ago.

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:

  1. It will remove documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
  2. It will tell us 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 our exclusion policy. If you think it applies to you, send a request to us at info@archive.org.

However see robots and extortion letter about robots

Freedom of information http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/foi

Note on licensing

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