Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: November 04, 2011, 02:11:26 AM »

Thanks so much, I thought I learned quite a bit from the Masterfile situation from another client/my mother, but it went away so quickly and this situation is quite different that it freaks me out a bit, especially knowing I did put that image there but did it in compliance with the law (as long as it is accepted as being a development page and not public) I think.

I think I need to get away from my reasoning and look at it from a logical, legal viewpoint and realize that this is a relatively small matter (especially compared to my mother's and what seems to be the majority of others).

I think my biggest fear is setting a precedent and paying for this one when the possibility of a larger demand from another company that could get potentially expensive could be around the corner. Then again one cannot live ones life in fear over things like this I guess.

Considering if I would have just locked down the development site and this wouldn't have occurred at all, I will probably just foot the bill and hire Oscar for them with the requirement that they educate themselves on the matter and if it happens again they will need to cover all expenses up to the point it is shown that damages are incurred as a result of my actions or inaction. At that point I'll see if it's something worth losing the client over but this (even if I paid Getty off) is too little a thing to allow it to become a wedge between me and my client, they are my biggest currently.

At least they agree that we should not pay this and if they (Getty) continue to push we will fight it all the way. I'm going to read a bit more on this, but it looks like my best bet would be to hire Oscar and let it go away like that. At least, I hope it'll work out like that.

Thanks, again, you've been a great help! I'll definitely be making a donation to this site for all the great work!

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 31, 2011, 05:36:11 AM »

By the time I designed this website, I was extremely aware of these letters as my mother was served with a huge one from Masterfile prior to this (we had receipts though and it was live), so I really made sure I didn't put anything on the site that wasn't original or properly licensed , I even emailed iStockPhoto to make sure I was properly licensing everything (and actually changed and added a lot of pictures on that same day to iStockPhoto ones so everything would be in one account, so when they (Masterfile, Getty or whomever) served them with one of these, I'd whip out the licenses and it would go away.

However, I did not expect them to spider the site using software and accessing development pages. In large redesigns, like this site, the week prior to launching pages for the site, I place them in the same folder as the live site (as rather than have them expense another server just for testing I can measure results using existing equipment). During this week, I put usually modify and/or change images to consider on the final live site and test things like live chat, links, and any databases and whatnot. This minimizes costs as well as downtime on launch day. One of the last things I do before "flipping the switch" is acquire licenses for the final page (when we are sure that's what we want, sometimes it changes last minute). In some cases (like this) some images weren't put on the live site either because we didn't like them or I could not locate the copyright holder. I was very careful and, I thought, thorough.

Now since these pages were in the final stages they were not publicly available, unless one were to scan the server like Getty did or use other tools to locate non-published files and directories. As far as I can tell, I'm in compliance with both of the regulations they say I violated. It wasn't "live" and was meant for review only. The page didn't even go live until the 25th. 5 days later after their screenshot I buy the pictures that are there to this day, I think that makes it kind of obvious, if I were using unlicensed images, why would I buy  any at all?

However, they state, like you do, that I should have had it password protected, but password protecting individual pages, especially ones with scripts, databases, and other things would interfere with testing. Of course there are ways of locking it down , but the site contained no sensitive information so security was not a concern and I didn't think the additional costs of locking it down were necessary (I mean really, spidering?).

I'm worried because I actually went through a few hundred images (all comp use to my understanding) during the course of designing this site, and none of the development pages were locked down. At the same time, none of them were live, but like in this instance, they could have been accessed by spidering, scanning, and even hacking. I'm really sweating that we're looking at a few million dollars in demands from other, future letters from other companies, even though everything on the site is licensed and has been, but if they got into the development pages especially in the beginning.....whew.

Of course, I'll need to just up security on all future sites to avoid this, but is it possible this could get crazy? Should we expect letters from the other companies too? By not password protecting the development pages, does that make it a violation anyway?

I wasn't worried before, I'm pretty schooled on this stuff (thanks to this site!), but just the sheer amount of pages that I put numerous sample images on and the fact that I never considered copyrights during non-published development or that they could access these pages (and I could be reasonably sure the general public couldn't) and now it turns out that my client (and in turn me) can be held liable for it by multiple companies scares the poo out of me. Seriously.

I was wanting to try to handle this with a letter explaining my position but I'm beginning to wonder if I need a lawyer. I'm not sure what to tell my client, not trying to mooch free advice here, if you feel I'm approaching mooch status that let me know, this is kind of freaking me out now. Just looking for guidance because if it starts costing money, I know my client is going to want me to pay for everything and I'm a little worried about setting a precedent should other letters start arriving.

Thanks for responding (everyone), I really appreciate it.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 27, 2011, 10:56:30 PM »

Ok, so they are going after my client and although I don't mind paying for retaining Oscar, I worry about setting a precedent and the next letters that come, cause you know they will, they will expect me to pay for any and all defenses regardless if my work is compliant or not. That could get expensive and unless I'm at fault I don't know if I should agree to pay for every scumbag that threatens a lawsuit.

I guess my next step here is to write a certified letter, but do I do that or does the client? Of course I will explain that while yes I did use the image for a draft page prior to publication, the fact that I did not use the image on the final live version of the site should alleviate any concerns tha I violated any laws.

My client says that since I built the site he wants me to handle everything, but according to the letter they won't even talk to me unless I am offering to pay the balance in full.

Question is, is there anyway I can handle this without their involvement or will they need to hire lawyers, write letters, etc? I want to fight it because unless they cant prove that it was a live site (which I don't see how) they don't have a case, I wouldn't think. Or do I explain to my clients that they have to fight it and only I can tell what happened and provide any documentation but that's as far as I can legally go.

I hate it's happening to them, but it appears I can only do so much.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 26, 2011, 06:15:29 PM »

Thanks!

That's exactly what I thought, I even mentioned to Getty that I found it interesting they were able to get to a non-publicly accessible page and the only way I could think of was a spider or bot that ignores robots.txt, of course there was no reply but he seemed to not disagree that they use spidering.

Plus I found it interesting that the top part of the page (the menu and title which would have said DRAFT) was cutoff in the screenshot. Surely this isn't all they have. Way Back doesn't show anything (it shows the site with all the licensed stuff all the way back to the old site (which makes me wonder if I should check that too?) are there other archive sites that may have the full site on that date? I'd love to show that it says draft or that it was inaccessible from the real site.

 Anyhow,he guy also told me that simply password protecting the directory would have sufficed. Which makes me mad that a private corporation can dictate such things to a private citizen and if I fail to comply I can be sued.

I agree though, from the specific clauses they emailed, I appear to be totally in the clear. You would think the fact I purchased a bunch a few days later and then actually published the page (created links and added to the menu of the site) with nothing but the images I bought will convince any judge and that it was obviously a draft page using comps transmitted to my client for review and not meant to be live (otherwise I would have bought the offending one along with the other images). Hopefully the burden of proof is on them and I don't have to worry about making non-technical court people understand the difference between a live page and a draft and the reasons why I develop like I do.

Again, thanks for the reply, I'm trying to shake off the anger but after the thing with Masterfile around the same time I was doing this site, it pisses me off I can be so careful and yet another client gets one of these letters. I should have taken copyright law or something.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 26, 2011, 03:52:17 PM »

Hello everyone, this is actually my second go round with a company suing my client for copyright infringement. Last time Masterfile tried to get my mother for a template she purchased from templatemonster.com back in 2004. Luckily, we located the receipts and although Masterfile is still pushing, templatemonster.com is handling it at no charge (as they should).

This time Getty Images has sent a letter to a client of mine for an image I used during the design phase of a project (I gathered a hundred or so images and incorporated them into the design for my clients to choose from). I had these stored on their in-house web server in a sub folder of the website (not directly accessible to the public). This folder contained the draft of the new website while the old website was still live. The reason for this is there were databases and other files and API's used in the old site that were going to be in the new design. I saw no problem with this, as it wasn't publicly accessible and in the design phase. At this point in my career, I am keenly aware of copyright infringement but I didn't know this applies to sites under development even if they aren't live.

Part of my design process includes giving my clients full access to the development site so they can critique and comment on it. This includes images found through Google that may or may not be used in the final live site. The client chooses which images to keep at which point I contact the copyright holder (in this case iStockPhoto.com) and obtain a license. I see no need in purchasing hundreds of images for a client to review when only a few will be used in the final product. So, I purchased license for every single image on the site but not every one we ever considered.


So, Getty was able to access the test site (they stated they use "crawlers") and hit my client for one of the images they saw on a page that ended up being cut from the final site. Yes, I put the image up for consideration but since my client didn't like it, I never bought it and never published it to the live site. However, since I didn't password protect the directory (this was on purpose the client has issues with logins), Getty says that is considered a live site, even though the real site that was live was completely different and this was obviously a development folder.

As a matter of fact, I published and bought all the legitimate images 5 days after they took their screenshot pic back in June when I published the live site. They state that they reject that explanation and even though the image was up for 5 days (the site went live then) it was rejected and I purchased everything on the final site it's still infringement and my client has to pay.

They seem to only have a screenshot and Way Back Machine doesn't show the offending page only the old and new sites (with legit images). They want $600, should I fight this?

I should add, I called them and explained it wasn't live but they rejected my explanation saying even though it wasn't accessible from the live main site, the fact that they could access it made it a violation. The $600 is a reduced offer from $780 for the one image. Did I make a mistake by calling? They are suing my client not me but I'm responsible not them.

They say I violated this specifically:

1.            Grant of License. Getty Images grants to you, for a period of thirty (30) days, a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable and non-assignable right to use the image and/or film preview file you have selected and any derivatives or copies (collectively, the "Licensed Material"), on your personal computer and, in the case of film, in any test, sample, comp or rough cut evaluation materials. The Licensed Material may only be used in materials for personal, noncommercial use and test or sample use, including comps and layouts.

2.            Restrictions.

2.1          The Licensed Material may not be used in any final materials distributed inside of your company or any materials distributed outside of your company or to the public, including, but not limited to, advertising and marketing materials or in any online or other electronic distribution system (except that you may transmit comps digitally or electronically to your clients for their review) and may not be distributed, sublicensed or made available for use or distribution separately or individually and no rights may be granted to the Licensed Material.


The page at that time was NOT accessible by the live site in anyway. Was not published or promoted. It seems I may be in compliance with the 1st paragraph as it was used nonpublically for only a couple of days as the site went live without the image just 5 days later. Especially this line "(except that you may transmit comps digitally or electronically to your clients for their review)". But I don't know. It doesn't make sense. It was accessible if one new the specific path or used a spider to locate it. But that can't be illegal.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bought Template 7 years ago, Now MasterFile is coming for me *Wow Update*

« on: July 19, 2011, 11:34:19 PM »

Update: Wow, I thought this was over, apparently not. Now, even with the reciept in hand from TemplateMonster.com and their word that they would handle the case should Masterfile persue, Masterfile is refusing to acknoledge the reciept and will not speak to TemplateMonster's attorneys.

They claim that TemplateMonster has nothing to do with our case and now they are demanding even more as they now have proof the infringement began in 2004 (the date of the reciept (to the tune of $50k)).

I don't see how any of this is legal. Am I going to have to just break down and spend thousands on an attorney anyway?

How is this legal? WTF is up with these copyright laws? How can one purchase ANY images without fear of being successfully sued even when you have reciepts?

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bought Template 7 years ago, Now MasterFile is coming for me

« on: July 13, 2011, 07:09:16 PM »

Update (for those that find themselves in a similar situation). Through a long and tedious tracing of steps and finding random people connected to the website project, we narrowed it down to one guy and company that no longer exists. We sent this information to the contact at TemplateMonster.com who actually found the order from 2004. They stated the graphics in question had to be taken down (interesting as they still sell them but they are offering to replace with legit licensed ones) and that should be sufficient in complying with MasterfilesRequest. If they push it, TemplateMonster.com will handle.

That's pretty awesome of TemplateMonster I think, although the whole experience has soured me from templates. Anyhow, looks like we're in the clear but if anyone else has a similar situation and lost the original reciept (which I will be keeping everything forever now) TemplateMonster can locate it with the right info.

Anyhow, good luck to everyone fighting these people, they sure are nasty and really, how the hell can they do this to people in America anyway?

8

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Bought Template 7 years ago, Now MasterFile is coming for me

« on: June 28, 2011, 08:14:24 PM »

Thanks for the replies, still looking kind of hairy if I don't somehow locate this reciept or the email address this guy used for te template (apparently ours wasn't used). Someone in the company did get a chance to speak to Oscar who made it sound like reciept or not, it's going to cost a couple of thousand in attorney's fee (as a corp, we must hire an attorney) at best and if we don't find the reciept they can get us for 3 years (because of the statute of limitations I assume plus the attorny's fees.

That is crazy. No matter what, legal transaction or not, win or lose, it's still going to cost a few grand. I don't get it. How is this not in the news, how are AG's or congress no taking a look into this? How does this crap happen in America, and be legal?

You hear of copyright infringement all the time (especially in this age of YouTube), but you don't hear anything about them having to pay an attorney to prove themselves innocent, they give them a chance to take it down (and these guys actually directly infringe on copyrights), we bought a template from a large, "legitimate" source with an extremely reasonable assumption that what we purchased was legally licensed. (Can you see these Apple lawsuits against Android where they are able to sue Android users over the touchscreen patent after getting what they want out of Google)?.

I don't know. TemplateMonster.com is still a highly rated, trusted site, today more so then back then. How the hell can we be held liable (or even have to pay any attornies fees to fight this) when they still sell the exact same template (infringing pictures and all) on their website.

Theres got to be something we all can do.

Anyway, I'm done, again thanks for the replies, I guess we'll see how it all pans out but right now, it ain't good.

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Bought Template 7 years ago, Now MasterFile is coming for me *Wow Update*

« on: June 24, 2011, 10:40:32 PM »

Hello everyone,

  Looks like I will be adding my case to the long list at this website, but yesterday we received a FedEx package from MasterFile concerning 2 images on our website that we purchased the template from TemplateMonster.com way back in 2003 (the site was published in 2004) of course they are demanding $36,000 since it's been up since 2007.

  As it was so long ago, we no longer have the receipts from the designer who made the purchase (and who knows what happened to him, he could be dead for all we know) but we did remember he got it from templatemonster.com because that where he had us go to pick it out. Once we did he purchased it on the spot when we picked it out (he did this in our presence so I'm pretty sure he wasn't scamming us).

 Luckily it is (still) a popular design as TemplateMonster still sells it WITH THE EXACT SAME IMAGES STILL INTACT.

 As we have the full template as it was when we purchased it (aside from obvious customizations) we left all images intact (well, we're removing the ones they say are illegal but I digress).

 I'm wondering, since it has been 7 years (we don't keep records past 3) is it going to be an issue that we don't have the receipt? Or should Template Monster have this on file still, hopefully?

I mean, clearly, we bought it from Template Monster, they still sell the exact same template. So I would think it's obvious.

I'm contacting my lawyer on Monday to assist but would like to know if anyone else has been in this situation and if I'm going to get screwed because I don't have the 7 year old receipt.

I keep reading that the statute of limitations is 3 years and I know I'm not required to keep business records from 7 years ago. But this thing has got me confused and upset.

Thanks for reading, hope someone can ease my mind a bit or it's going to be a looong weekend.