Thread

Web developers, take note.  If you don’t know the original source of that photo you want to use on your website, you may pay the price BIG TIME.  Stock photo library companies such as Corbis, Getty Images and Superstock, amongst others are extorting those that have the least ability to fight if they find any image that infringes on their copyrights. 

Here’s an interesting article on the subject, well worth reading:

http://arizona-php-developer.com/blog/2011/04/offshore-outsourcing-could-get-sued

The worst case scenario we’ve seen is a church that had their website done by an offshore web designer they found on freelancer.com, got it back - looked fine.  So they published it.  Only to find 6 months later, a retroactive extortion letter and invoice to the tune of $5,000.  They couldn’t afford to fight it, so their $5 an hour designer ended up costing them twice what a local designer would have charged and would have guaranteed to use creative commons or have purchased license for royalty-free images for the project.

Unfortunately many regions in the third world that now offer inexpensive web design & development services, have a long history of ignoring and rampantly abusing copyright, whether it be movies, CDs, software, etc.  So often designers in those regions don’t think twice about building up large libraries of their own stock images without any care for where they came from or who owns them.  Unfortunately when they build a website for a client, the client ends up being the exposed party and subject of a lawsuit - not the developer (who is probably long gone anyway).

We all need to make a big stink about this, because its getting worse and worse.  Newer technologies are being employed that resemble the same bots that the RIAA used to find pirated music and sue grandmothers over, but no one is making a big enough stink against the stock libraries who now see this as a legal (yet unethical) way to make money extorting those with the least resources to pay for images they thought that they had legal right to use on their website.  And with websites being public for all to see, along with contact details, who-is info, etc. its pretty hard to hide from these tactics.

M

Also to further this, check out this site:

http://www.zyra.info/getstu.htm

This pretty much sums up the whole nasty business.

If you make or sign a contract, always be sure that all images, code, and everything else that is created for you (or them) is given to them as property. This means that if you outsource, be sure to add that piece in the contract if it’s not already there.

If I were to outsource and they had that in the contract, I could say well.. THESE GUYS guaranteed that this was legitimately mine, no royalties attached. Therefore, if you need to prosecute anyone, it will be them.

Additionally, I believe the DMCA provides security for anyone posting copyright infringement material such as stock images, drawings, and other things such as music and videos. You are protected up to two notices within a few weeks of time (I think it’s two weeks) and a 48hour to remove rule. I was once sent a takedown notice for some images a few years back and nothing happened after I did because I was protected by the DMCA and the copyright notice on the site.

Anyone not respecting the rules of the good US of A can suck it, because I’m not dealing with international relations and as far as the internet is concerned, they can’t make me 😛

Wrong.  The DMCA doesn’t apply in the case of photographic use on a website you control.  Check http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,1921.0.html for a full legal description as to why.  Trust me, I know.  I’m $2500 poorer to gain that knowledge.

Also further flaw in your argument…  A ‘contract’ is only as good as the jurisdiction in which it can be enforced.  If you use a graphic artist in India, or Russia, or Argentina, etc. and you are in the USA, try using that as a defense. You can’t enforce that contract unless you have legal representation in both your country, and once you have a judgment there, you have to be dealing with a country that will enforce you domestic judgment in their jurisdiction and that costs money to have legal representation in the country where your subcontractor resides, to then enforce and collect on that judgment.  What most people who get about as close to a courtroom as watching Judge Judy on TV don’t realize, most judgments are not collected.  And if they are international, its about 1% chance of you ever collecting on it.  I agree with you in that I wish more US companies and clients would realize that doing business with offshore sweatshop providers reduces their legal enforceability to basically none.  Its the price you pay to get a cheap programmer, I guess.

As for using the actions of your employee or subcontractor or agent as a defense to your own liability?  Forget it.  You get sued, and then you can sue your subcontractor.  Or in the case above, you can get a great paper judgment and never get anything for it.  If its your website, you are responsible for what gets put on it.  Maybe a blog comment might be something you could try and get out of.  But for an image you or someone you hire puts up on your site for its design, you wear it. 

The reality here is that the stock photo libraries make MORE money going after the little guy with these extortion letters than they do in licensing photos legitimately.  They know that, but won’t admit it.  The only time you could be considered somewhat protected and able to simply take down the images, is if you live in a country that enforces that facility.  I believe the UK, and many other European countries do.  But the US, despite the DMCA, does not.  If a photo is registered in the Library of Congress here, they can also come after you for legal costs in attempting to enforce the charge as well.

Until we change these laws in the US, we’re screwed.  Write your congressman.  Write the EFF.  I know.  I wrote the check on this one, and that was after paying high end Manhattan attorneys for advice in fighting this.

Here’s a specific reason why the DMCA doesn’t apply to stock photo use on a website:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,1921.0.html

Myles

Is this topic about not stealing photos or about not outsorcing?