Copyright on Use of A Photo - Opinions?

EightImmortals on 18/09/2018 - 17:56
Last edited 19/09/2018 - 09:01 by 1 other user

Just throwing it out there for all the OB lawyers, I have a friend who is being hassled by a copyright collection agency (not the creator)for money for using a pic on his news website.

Here is the link to the pic.

If you click the licence info on the page it takes you to the creative commons license which states:

You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

So to me that means that my friend (not me BTW :) )was free to use the image on his website. He was not using it to put on any product or to sell. What do you guys reckon, is he just being targeted by a copyright troll that is safe to ignore their demand for money? (Especially as they are not the creator anyway?)

General Discussion Copyright

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 18/09/2018 - 18:02
    +6

    Ignore. I get those emails even though my website is all photos from my own camera.

    Edit - I also get
    1. emails from debt collection (I don't do financing for any of my anything)
    2. remortgaging contracts "I requested" even though I don't have a mortgage
    3. car accidents I have been involved in even though my car isn't under my name
    4. Scouted as suitable for solar even though my roof is glass
    5. Discounts on gas but my property isn't plumbed for gas

    • WreckTangle on 18/09/2018 - 18:32
      +2

      You live in a glasshouse?

      • [Deactivated] on 18/09/2018 - 18:38
        +1

        It's my office. Between air conditioning units, vents and other roof related things, it's glass. One look and you know it's not suitable for solar.

        PS. I can see why you think that. It isn't quite as glasshousy as I made it sound, there's a rooftop deck/chill spot?

  • EightImmortals on 18/09/2018 - 18:13

    Thanks, I just found this on Reddit as well.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/podcasts/comments/985lbf/psa_dont_p…

  • whooah1979 on 18/09/2018 - 18:22

    Op, has the other party sent a c&D?

    • EightImmortals on 18/09/2018 - 19:04

      Apparently just a demand for money.

  • Thrift on 19/09/2018 - 05:05
    +1

    So to me that means that my friend (not me BTW :) )was free to use the image on his website.

    Provided your friend abided by the terms of the licence, which is:

    Under the following terms:
    Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

    As long as there was correct attribution alongside the image, eg
    "Echter Bitcoin Chip" by Marco Verch, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    then your friend is licensed to use the image on their website. Without the attribution, the use is not licensed.

    (That is assuming the person who uploaded the image to Flickr and made it available under Creative Commons had the right to do so.)

  • godofpizza on 19/09/2018 - 10:07

    So to me that means that my friend (not me BTW :)

    if your friend isn't concerned by the demands, why should you?

    • EightImmortals on 19/09/2018 - 11:49

      He is, I'm just helping him to get some research/opinions. :)

  • mshanann on 19/09/2018 - 11:46

    I had a mate of mine (here in Aus) whom got a family member to create a simple business website for him to give him some visibility on the internet;

    The website would get less than 20 hits per month.

    The family member unfortunately leveraged the following image which they had found somewhere and assumed free-use

    https://tineye.com/search/4cbcd70c7e4bfbbfdaae41bcac40d159d9…

    It turns out it was created by this same Daniel Foster (from Berlin) person whom owns Pixsy -

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141005/09461528736/photo…

    Anyway .. he gets an Infringement of Copyright notice email not long after from "Actuate IP" whom are trademark and patent attorneys in Melbourne whom had been appointed by Daniel Foster demanding I think $20000 AUD, along with removal of offending image etc, and gave a deadline.

    My mate freaked out, got his Professional Indemnity insurance people involved, solicitors and so forth. I think they ended up negotiating a deal of $5,000 or something.

    Anyway.. pretty scary stuff, and the fact that this Pixsy person went out of his way to get Australian-based legal firm involved spoke volumes.

    Not a bad business model spreading your images all over the internet - even getting sites to label them as public domain etc… and then waiting for some business to leverage the image and sue accordingly.

    • EightImmortals on 19/09/2018 - 11:52

      That's interesting. In that case though Foster was the creator in my mate's case he isn't. I suspect that might play into things? Maybe he should just fork over the $600 and be done with the lowlife?

      • mshanann on 19/09/2018 - 12:07

        I'm not a lawyer, but unless that company chasing your friend is some Australian law firm and your friend has received paper-based correspondence, I'd probably ignore the request. Ensure the image is removed from the website, and google cache / wayback machine etc don't have any copies of the site with the old image. Possibly even remove the article.

        • EightImmortals on 19/09/2018 - 12:23

          AFAIK He's pulled the whole website, just not worth this kind of BS when he thought he was doing the right thing and operating under a CC license for some pics. But good advice on the paper-based correspondence.

          • mrbarton on 09/04/2020 - 17:13

            @EightImmortals: Hi there,

            I unfortunately have found myself in a similar situation with a scammy photographer in Germany demanding money for using one of his photos. Just wondering what happened with it? Did your friend reply to them and did the person take any further legal action? What would you recommend I do?

            Cheers,
            Mr B

            • EightImmortals on 09/04/2020 - 18:14

              @mrbarton: I'll find out and get back to you but from memory he pleaded poor and negotiated a much lower demand fee and just paid it to make the guy go away.

              • mrbarton on 09/04/2020 - 19:41

                @EightImmortals: Thanks mate, I just looked at the photo your friend was done for and turns out its the same guy coming after me! Would appreciate knowing what happened as I'm writing a reply to the guy as we speak. His name is Marco Verch.

                • EightImmortals on 09/04/2020 - 20:26

                  @mrbarton: Just spoke to him and he got him down to $200, then just paid him to go away. I think there was a bit of back-and-forth beofre they settled on that price. Hope that helps.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join