Statute of Limitations Copyright Law

[annalise]

I keep reading about the statue of limitations for copyright infringement being 3 years.  What exactly does this mean?

If Getty images sends me a demand letter claiming copyright infringement for a photo on my blog (with screen shot of page dated today) and this photo was provided by a stock photo company 10 years ago and has been on my blog since then, then can I claim the statue of limitations defense?

Also, how would I prove it has been on my blog for this long?

Thanks in advance for any info!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It is my understanding, that the statute runs from the time of discovery of infringement. so the date on the letter would effectively start the ticker running.

They can easily tell how long an image has been on your site, simply by visiting archive.org. I would suggest you visit there your self and have your archived removed, and also add some coding to your page to not have your site archived. Search this forum for threads on how to do this.

[annalise]

Thanks for the info on statute of limitations.

But if I ask for proof of registration of copyright and they provide me with a registration date of say 4 years ago, could the fact that I have had it online for 10 years be indicative of the fact that they did not hold the copyright when I published it?

Also- I have removed files from archive- but wouldn't they already have this info saved, i.e. as a screen shot?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

yes they probably have screen shots, but it's still a good idea, to prevent another company coming along.

Good question in terms of the actual copyright. Keep in mind I'm not an attorney. I think this scenario would limit them to 4 years, but perhaps it would make it null and void altogether.. Very good question! lets see who else chimes in on this.

[annalise]

As a general rule, should an online business block all archiving of a site regardless of any copyright infringement issue?

[annalise]

Back to the Statute of limitations issue:  I read somewhere else in the forum here about a case against a bicycle company.  The message (copied below) states that the statute had run out:  Does this mean that MF contacted CC more than 3 years ago about this supposed infringement and because they are now suing that the 3 years is relevant?

Trying to figure out whether having a supposedly infringing photo on my website for 10 years and just now being contacted is a valid claim.

The case is called Masterfile Corporation v. Country Cycling & Hiking Tours By Brooks, Inc. (even the title is wordy). From now on in this post I will refer to Masterfile as "MF" and the Defendant as "CC" MF sued CC, a small bike touring business for having four MF images on its website without authorization. The images were on CC's website for over 3 years (which is the statute of limitations period under the Act anyway)

[SoylentGreen]

Just because a photo has been on your site for ten years does not necessarily mean that the staute of limitations has run out.

The statute dictates that the copyright holder has a three year window within which they can take legal action after discovery of an alleged infringement.

However, they cannot legally claim damages for a time period greater than the three years prior to the detection of the alleged infringement.

I'm sure that the case that you speak of was brought to court within such a three year period.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

From now on ... I will refer to Masterfile as "MF"

I usually refer to Masterfile as "MF" too. And I think of the people that work for them as "MF-ers."

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

As a general rule, should an online business block all archiving of a site regardless of any copyright infringement issue?

Personally I am not fond of having to block the archiving of my sites OR blocking of bots based on user-agent. I don't think a company should have to spend on iota of energy "hiding." I would much rather spend my energy making sure my house is in order (in terms of copyright clearance).

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

As a general rule, should an online business block all archiving of a site regardless of any copyright infringement issue?

Personally I am not fond of having to block the archiving of my sites OR blocking of bots based on user-agent. I don't think a company should have to spend on iota of energy "hiding." I would much rather spend my energy making sure my house is in order (in terms of copyright clearance).

I agree that it is important to have ones house in order, however as far as blocking picscout and other nasty bots comes more from a bandwidth sucking issue with me.