Does copyright infringement have a time limit?

[maccaz]

Hi all

I designed a site in February and stupidly used images from google images, which I now know was a big mistake. The site
was 3 months old when I realised about stock company letters. I took down all images immmediately.

I bought whatever number of images I found that i had used from getty (2), istock (3) and corbis (1) images. I then bought all new images from Shutterstock.com. The site will be coming down shortly as it was only a temporary one. I thought buying the images before any letter comes might help my negotiations/defense/case.

I am in the process of asking Archives.org to remove the site from the archives as I don't have access to put the robot.txt file. The
administrators have agreed to get it taken off the archives. I haven't heard back from Archives.org yet though.

But this is really playing on nerves and I'm quite anxious about it. I understand Getty could come after me and then Corbis and maybe there are other images I didn't find and buy and could be from Masterfile! Who knows!

So I am wondering is there any time limit on copyright infringement or could they come back after looking at another archive site in 5 years and say, 'hey you owe us 10,000 dollars!!

Please give me some advice, it's getting to me
Thanks

[maccaz]

Hi again,

Just here to ask again if anyone has any information on this matter? Would greatly
appreciate some info.

Thanks again for this great resource!

[SoylentGreen]

Normally, the time limit is according to your local laws.
Many US states have a 4-year limit to bring a civil suit to court, for example.
But, it varies.

If a plaintiff takes a long time to file suit, it can sometimes weaken their case.
A plaintiff can look 'negligent' in some situations if they didn't call attention to a situation in a reasonable time frame.

Having said all that, if you were never 'caught' infringing, and you've removed the images, then you should be ok.
You did the right thing.

S.G.

[Helpi]

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,1517.msg1536/topicseen.html#msg1536

[wela]

I would say on the Getty end you are close to being off the hook as they found one of my sites in DEC and sent the letter in APRIL. Found another in MARCH and sent it in JULY.

So it's looking like they send letters 4-5 months after the findings.. it's probably taking them this long to do the research after their software finds the image in question.

I don't think you have anything you have anything to worry about, you took them down, bought them, etc. You did the right thing.

[Oscar Michelen]

3 years from the date on your first Getty letter - that's the latest possible time Getty could file a timely suit. US Copyright Law pre-empts State  laws so there are no State copyright acts. All copyright claims must be brought in Federal Court and all of them must be commenced within 3 years from the infringement or from the reasonable discovery of the infringement. So while it is likely Getty discovered the infringement a day or so before the letter went out, the date on the letter is a solid starting point to start counting the three years.

[rnewlinked]

My company is rolling up on the 3-year SOL date. Once that date comes and goes, do I have little further risk of being sued by Getty? My company established a reserve to address the contingent liability, and we are trying to determine if it's safe to reallocate the funds to more useful purposes.

Thanks for your input!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Once the 3 years is over, they cannot file suit for the images contained in the original letter. However if there are other images that are not properly licensed, you may get another letter in the future. Say fro example from a different stock image company..

[rnewlinked]

Thanks for the confirmation. Given that this forum is over 3 years old now, is this group beginning to see the 3-year SOL expiring without Getty taking further action? Has anyone who received "the letter" from Oscar subsequently been contacted and/or sued by Getty?

Thanks again.

[Akeia]

rnewlinked, I'm curious to the answer of question you asked: "is this group beginning to see the 3-year SOL expiring without Getty taking further action? Has anyone who received "the letter" from Oscar subsequently been contacted and/or sued by Getty?"

I'm also wondering if anyone has been sued at all. I'll look further in this forum b/c I'm sure it's been posted if someone has.

[rnewlinked]

I did not correctly word my previous post. I actually meant to inquire if anyone who hired Oscar to write a letter to Getty in response to "the letter" has been contacted? Has Oscar been contacted as our counsel of record on this issue? I am also curious if others are seeing the 3-year SOL expiring without further contact after Getty's receipt of Oscar's letter.

I have not heard a "peep" from anyone concerning this matter since Oscar's letter was mailed on my company's behalf, neither from Getty nor Oscar.

Thanks!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Once Getty receives the letter from Oscar, they legally cannot contact anyone regarding the matter except for Oscar, as he is counsel. For them to contact the defendant afterwards would be a big no-no.. Rest assured if Oscar hears back from Getty, he will follow up with you..so in a sense no news is good news.

 In regards to the statute question, yes there are folks that have gone past the 3 year threshold, as well as some of us that are nearing it, other have a long wait ahead of them.

[Matthew Chan]

Quite honestly, I never thought much of the Statute of Limitations until it was brought to my attention many months ago.  I guess I fit the profile as being one of the most visible letter recipients who has passed the 3-year mark.  But my strategy was not to "ignore" the letters.  I responded appropriately as the communications came each time.

The people who have the most to worry about from being hit from "out of the blue" are the people who choose to ignore it.  It automatically forces them to escalate the issue to a 3rd-party as it seems to be the case by other people who have reported in.

I believe it also matters HOW you respond, what you write, and how they view you as whether you were an innocent infringer, how many images you have, and whether you are an easy target.

Unfortunately, most letter recipients have too little experience, knowledge, or a spine to make a satisfactory response to get them to back off. However, there are many who have gotten educated and breathed huge relief when they realize they had options and that there was nothing special about their case.

Matthew

[Oscar Michelen]

Just to clear up this issue - Local laws DO NOT APPLY.  Copyright is a federal statute and can only be pursued in Federal Court. The US Copyright Act sets a 3 year statute of limitation which applies throughout the US so 3 years from the date of your first Getty letter the case is over (as long as you have stopped using the images in any way)

[BadLuck]

This is what I've been trying to research based on the posts on this forum.

Lets assume a site had multiple images on it. The owner gets a C&D letter over 1 image (not all of them) and takes down ALL the images in 2007. At this point, I'd imagine the site owner is being extremely cautious and wants to prevent these other questionable images from harming them. So the flagged site is clean from 2007 forward. From what I can gather, Getty has no legal ground to sue over that 1 image mentioned in their letter from 2007. But, where things seem to get fuzzy are the other images and archives. Could Getty come back and start this whole C&D or sue over those "long gone" images? Their only basis are screenshots of the site's older state (where the images where there in 2007)... but in this example, it's now 4 years since the website owner used those images.

Also, I'm not considering the idea of other companies sending letters as this is a possibility. My main focus is the actions taken from the same company and if they are checking websites based on their current state (not the archives).

Once the 3 years is over, they cannot file suit for the images contained in the original letter. However if there are other images that are not properly licensed, you may get another letter in the future. Say fro example from a different stock image company..