My "Extortion" Letter Experience (so far)

[flora]

I hope that other readers of this forum will find these comments helpful, or interesting:

1. I am a busy professional who hired a web design company to put up my site. I more or less designed the site and worked with them, and they put up the images.

I received a Superstock letter for a single image on the site, which I immediately removed.  Superstock sent a screen shot, a link to the website showing the image was not free and even a printed catalog that showed the image.  This was about a month ago. I spoke to my web designer who said that they did not use illegal images, that because they use "thousands of images" they did not know where that image may have come from, they spoke of "extortion", "trolls" etc. and said they would "take care of it". My initial suggestion to the web designer was that they contact Superstock, tell them they buy many images and negotiate a settlement. My situation has now advanced to the second stage where I have received an attorney's letter saying I have 15 days to pay $2200 for the image or they would sue.  Basically my web designer ignored my phone calls and emails regarding this matter until I finally had a phone consult with them yesterday. Essentially the designer said it was my problem, they no longer were connected with the site they put up and their contract stipulated they were not responsible for content.

I felt they were responsible. I don't know how they came upon the image and apparently either do they. The web designer was quite arrogant, "well, its your problem, not ours" and I said I was going to look for another web designer.

I have only read 10 pages of forum posts so I don't know if (or how many times) this has been brought up, but I think it is one issue that needs to be addressed.

Web designers should be held responsible for images they post, they should to catalog each image they use on the site and provide a record for the client. When I hire my next designer, I am going to read the contract carefully and I am going to make certain there is a clause regarding images.

2. I think the article which encourages people like me to take their own images is an excellent one and it has inspired me to try to go through my site and eliminate as many stock images as I can and replace them with images I create myself.

3. I have often used ISTOCK. I did not realize this was a Getty company, which is discouraging. I agree with one poster that clients need to petition ISTOCK and other companies to provide a receipt that a specific, identified image has been purchased for use. I don't know how you go about getting a company to change policies, but perhaps someone has a suggestion.

4. I am going to sign the WHITE HOUSE PETITION mentioned in the forum. This, it seems to me, must be even more clearly emphasized on your site. It makes sense, if you are an innocent user of an image, you should be able to remove the image without penalty. It seems logical that trolling companies are finding an image, waiting and then send "extortion" letters. At the very least, it is a way to bring this matter into public discussion. Does anyone know a New York Times journalist? It seems this would be a juicy subject.

5. I am in favor of copyright laws. My second life is as an artist. If I found that someone was using an image of mine commercially, I would be upset. What is clear from my experience and this site is that it is the manner in which companies such as Superstock are going about defending their copyright that is the problem.

6. Somehow all these issues need to be organized into a list, a set of principles or demands or organizing principles, that would result in legislation to bring order to the whole issue of images on the web.

7. Finally, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts because it helps to reduce the stress that comes with this issue. In my case, I put up a website, I go about my professional life, and suddenly I'm sucked into the issue that is not my area of expertise, the company that provided the services associated with the issue abandon me, I am receiving letters and documents asking me for over $2000 and threatening me with attorney's fees for thousands of dollars more.
As many of us feel, I don't need this.

8. As I go through the posts, I notice there is controversy regarding sending out letters, etc. Perhaps I might suggest that this be organized differently. Instead of the idea of one attorney with one email address receiving multiple requests, couldn't a structure be created which would organize requests in some way with a legal assistant handling the letters? I would pay for a letter, but the process seems to be a murky area in what is really a very informative, although a little emotional,site.

Thanks.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Greetings,
Soory to see you've been sucked into this, I'm going to make some point, that may be helpful, or perhaps just food for thought.

In "most" cases a suit will not be filed over 1 image, as it's risky if they loose, and it's not a big money maker for them, now I'm sure what superstocks record is in this regard. either way it should not be ignored in my opinion.

As far as your web developer is concerned, shame on them for not supporting their client!. You could go after them if you feel compelled to do so, if your contract states "content" you may have some wiggle room as this is an image, which could be interpreted either way. Again i'm not an attorney, but this may be worth asking.

As a web developer myself, I go the extra mile and have it in my contract, that all images are to be supplied by the client, I also give all of my clients a minute education on the dangers of grabbing images, so that they are clear on the matter, and can make a choice as to whether they want to purchase the images or not. I am also in the process of adding a clause releasing my company, if they do choose to use unlicensed images.

I think the main issue with web designers supplying the images even if they do license them, if that the stock companies go after the domain owner, and could care less about where the image came from , or who put it there, so even if they did license it, they have the license not the site owner.. IMHO it's just better that the client own the license therefore they are covered without having to drag a third party into it.

Thanx for joining in on the petition, please send it to your friends and relatives as well, we need all the help we can get.

As for the controversy regarding the letters, there have been very few issues with letters being sent in comparison to the volume of letters being drafted and sent, and those issues have always been taken care of. This site itself is more geared to getting information out there, and educating people on the issues, while at the same time letting them know that there are options including the letter. Implementing new systems, hiring assistants, etc, would only drive up the cost of the letter, and we're trying to keep that reasonable for all involved..

Thanx for sharing with us, and whatever your decision, I wish you the best of luck!

[flora]

Thank you so much your helpful reply!!