Author Topic: What would you do? Legal question (Read 11858 times)

madelaide · « **Reply #25 on:** April 21, 2011, 10:36 »

Let's forget for a while the "it's not worth the trouble" aspect, because these are cheap microstock images.

Are infractors required only to pay the correct license fee if they're caught? Is that all that the law requires or that a lawyer can ask for when someone infringes the license terms?

madelaide · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2011, 10:45 »

Oh, I forgot to mention, if one is serious about pursuing rights in court, he should never contact the infractor himself.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2011, 12:39 »

Quote from: madelaide on April 21, 2011, 10:36

Let's forget for a while the "it's not worth the trouble" aspect, because these are cheap microstock images.

Are infractors required only to pay the correct license fee if they're caught? Is that all that the law requires or that a lawyer can ask for when someone infringes the license terms?

I'll never say I like it, but that's the way it looks.

I'd be much happier if someone would contact a lawyer, with the actual case and facts and get an answer. We're just tossing around ideas without the detailed information.

It's not the same as stealing, it's more like someone finds an error and corrects it. To prove intent one would have to see into the mind of the buyer. We know that it's a loophole and the buyers can exploit our images, until caught, but how do you prove they did it intentionally? It gets deeper and messier and more expensive, and for what? $28?

The whole issue after proving they did something wrong is, does it pay to do more than enforce the proper license. It's kind of like a parking ticket, not grand theft.

click_click · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2011, 13:13 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 21, 2011, 12:39

...
It's not the same as stealing, it's more like someone finds an error and corrects it. To prove intent one would have to see into the mind of the buyer. We know that it's a loophole and the buyers can exploit our images, until caught, but how do you prove they did it intentionally? It gets deeper and messier and more expensive, and for what? $28?

To me it is the same as stealing.

The dozens and dozens of cases of copyright infringement (of my images) that I have discovered, not one of them ever claimed that they actually purchased a license, not even a regular license!

Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone steals the images with intent but when I find my images on university web sites or attorney's offices, I have to drink a bunch of pitchers with relaxation tea to keep my cool.

However, (some of us,) we make a living off of selling some of our images for 25 or more cents. So whichever way they (the thieves) want to make it look like, they should just pay the proper price of the picture and be done with it.

Whoever, gets the busted users to actually purchase a license after the fact, Kudos to you but I never, ever had once somebody actually buying the license after I busted them. They just removed the image (and often replaced it with another one - go figure).

cathyslife · « **Reply #29 on:** April 21, 2011, 17:09 »

Quote from: click_click on April 21, 2011, 13:13

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 21, 2011, 12:39
...
It's not the same as stealing, it's more like someone finds an error and corrects it. To prove intent one would have to see into the mind of the buyer. We know that it's a loophole and the buyers can exploit our images, until caught, but how do you prove they did it intentionally? It gets deeper and messier and more expensive, and for what? $28?

To me it is the same as stealing.

The dozens and dozens of cases of copyright infringement (of my images) that I have discovered, not one of them ever claimed that they actually purchased a license, not even a regular license!

Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone steals the images with intent but when I find my images on university web sites or attorney's offices, I have to drink a bunch of pitchers with relaxation tea to keep my cool.

However, (some of us,) we make a living off of selling some of our images for 25 or more cents. So whichever way they (the thieves) want to make it look like, they should just pay the proper price of the picture and be done with it.

Whoever, gets the busted users to actually purchase a license after the fact, Kudos to you but I never, ever had once somebody actually buying the license after I busted them. They just removed the image (and often replaced it with another one - go figure).

The price at which some photos gets sold is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is basically stealing, and not paying for the proper extended license (that costs a lot more than 25 cents) is considered copyright infringement. I have never read anywhere that intent enters into the equation of proving copyright infringement. I have always heard that ignorance is not a valid legal defense. Especially when the image is being used by a large corporation.

I stumbled across this site:
http://www.stockphotorights.com/faq/

edit: here's another

FYI: I came across another link from the copyright office's site:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What would you do? Legal question (Read 11858 times)

madelaide

madelaide

RacePhoto

click_click

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors