Higbee, PicRights and AFP for photo inside a PDF

[DavidVGoliath]

... who ever created the file found it on google images

The lesson of the day? A Google image search is not a free-for-all image library.

I definitely think i have an argument here.

Then consult a lawyer who has specialist knowledge of copyright law, and give them all the facts of how the PDF came to be made etc. - they'll then let you know how much weight your argument may bear.

[RR]

David,
First of all you are not helping, i did not write this post to get "lesson of the day" from you.

I'm posting here to ask to assistance with lawyers that are trying to squeeze money from me in dishonest ways.

[RR]

The case is i found it on the internet without any mentioning of copy rights, i had no way to know it's owned by someone.
This use had no bad intention any Getty image has a watermark, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/parents-swinging-their-daughter-in-garden-high-res-stock-photography/498626487
The one i'm accused of did not have anything and no right claim, i do not know where google took the photo from but i can't know either.

Also a fair cost of a getty image is 500-600 dollars where is over 3000 is coming from?!

[DavidVGoliath]

It’s two times in two years and I used Google Images to get any images that are allowed without permission and we all know how the Youngson honeypot operation goes.

For the love of all that is holy, Google Images is not a stock photo library so, unless you want to run the risk of being sued, don't use it for that purpose.

All that Google Images does is create an index of content that exists on web servers and, when you key a query like "white crested duck", their proprietary algorithms will show you a selection of images that (partly or completely) matches your search terms.

What it can't do with 100% certainty is inform you whether any image you click on is subject to copyright, available under a Creative Commons (or similar) license, or if the copyright has expired (public domain). All it can do is point you to the website where it found and indexed that particular image and, even then, there may not be any further useful information with the degree of unambiguity that you may need to avoid the risk of infringing.

[RR]

The problem you expect the normal person to know and understand it and before they had the notice for copy rights it was not clear or understandable for people who don't understand computers or how it works.
There's a reason why it happens so many times.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

The problem you expect the normal person to know and understand it and before they had the notice for copy rights it was not clear or understandable for people who don't understand computers or how it works.
There's a reason why it happens so many times.

which is exactly why EVERY image indexed by google includes "Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More" with the learn more leading to https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp_cy6iujdAhVKIKwKHfs8CbkQlZ0DegQIARAB

[DavidVGoliath]

Google have been displaying notifications that "Images May be Subject to Copyright" alongside their image search results for at least six years - a few months after they made their reverse-search algorithm publicly usable.

http://www.mediacrazed.com/google-images-for-your-website

[RR]

If this was and case... and it's not there would have no reason for this:
GETTY AND GOOGLE REACH SETTLEMENT—SAY GOODBYE TO ‘VIEW IMAGE’ BUTTON
http://resourcemagonline.com/2018/02/getty-and-google-reach-settlement-say-goodbye-to-view-image-button/85921/

Labelling – Google agreed to “mak[e] the copyright disclaimer more prominent” on image results. While this doesn’t stop would-be pilferers from scraping images, it does notify well-meaning individual unaware of copyright law.

It think the self righteous attitude doesn't help people who are dealing with those lawyers.

[Ethan Seven]

which is exactly why EVERY image indexed by google includes "Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More" with the learn more leading to https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp_cy6iujdAhVKIKwKHfs8CbkQlZ0DegQIARAB

Agreed. 

From my understanding the copyright notice has always been there.   Furthermore, I think the reasonable American adult, especially one who is engaged in business, should have enough commonsense to know (1) Google is not a free library of images and (2) that you cannot just take and use what you do not own.

[Matthew Chan]

I would agree with your statement.  Most people don't really learn about the ins and outs of this stuff until they get their first demand letter.

However, there are a fair amount of people who "sort of know and should know" but don't really pay heed until they get hit directly.  There are people on different parts of the infringement spectrum.

The problem you expect the normal person to know and understand it and before they had the notice for copy rights it was not clear or understandable for people who don't understand computers or how it works.
There's a reason why it happens so many times.

[Matthew Chan]

Regarding "American adults engaged in business"....

I am sad to tell you I know many people who have been in business for years and STILL know so little about how the online world works. Using the default search is a feat much less choosing a search engine. Many still don't know they can actually choose a search engine, period.

The lack of basic computer proficiency clicking around Windows, copying and pasting files, saving files, using Word, Excel, etc. and basic typing skills is sadly still alive and well today.

Given this very low baseline that still exists to this day, it is not a far stretch that the issue of IP and copyright is extremely far away with many people.

You also have business people who naively hire overseas freelancers expecting ethical behavior but it turns out they pirate many elements of their work.

Let's remember, there are still huge swaths of people whose only Internet access is their phone.  Some very small timers operate that way. Lots of "street entrepreneurs" out there who dabble online. When they eventually "graduate" to a computer, it is not surprising that there will be new people who fall into the trap.

And for the record, I find interacting with someone with such a low base of computer knowledge very painful to witness.   And even people who are "intelligent", it is shocking the level of ignorance that continue to exist.

From my understanding the copyright notice has always been there.   Furthermore, I think the reasonable American adult, especially one who is engaged in business, should have enough commonsense to know (1) Google is not a free library of images and (2) that you cannot just take and use what you do not own.

[Ethan Seven]

You are probably right.  I am sure there are some unsophisticated people running unsophisticated businesses that get themselves in trouble. 

It just seems to me that the overwhelming people who are smart enough to do everything else it takes to start a business and deploy a website should be smart enough to know Google is not a source of free images.   

[clist]

You are probably right.  I am sure there are some unsophisticated people running unsophisticated businesses that get themselves in trouble. 

It just seems to me that the overwhelming people who are smart enough to do everything else it takes to start a business and deploy a website should be smart enough to know Google is not a source of free images.

 
Condescend much?

Gheesh.

The truth of the matter is that [insert adjective here] people can launch a website / web based business with close to nothing [for next to nothing] and most likely use images found on the web because they just don't know any better.  Plain and simple.

They probably assume that (1) images that shouldn't be used without consent will have some kind of a disclaimer (eg: an easy to read watermark ~ not some fine print bulls*it) and/or (2) they'll receive some sort of C&D warning about an "illegal usage" before they get an demand letter. 

And lets face it, we live in a time where "sharing" is encouraged [eg: creative commons, facebook sharing, IG reposts, etc.] so its easy for ANYBODY to come to that conclusion.

Unfortunately opportunistic lawyers and copyright trolls with shady business models are having a field day playing the "gotcha" game in which they take antiquated laws from yesterday and hang the people of today out to dry with them..

It really is a sad state of affairs.

 

/rant

[Ethan Seven]

I believe saying people are smart enough to know something is the opposite of condescending.

You are probably right that I underestimate the impact that social media has on some people’s mindset when they infringe.  nevertheless, I still suspect that is a very small percentage who do not know the difference between sharing photos on social media and deploying them on a commercial website.

I believe that the overwhelming number of people who infringe do it based on assumptions that include, it feels like a victimless crime, it is easy to do, the chances of getting caught are small, they think if they get caught they will just get a warning, there are no major consequences if they do get caught, it is cheaper to infringe and deal with the rare consequences that it is to buy and track licenses.    Many of those assumptions are probably true, but none are based on ignorance that it is a violation of copyright.

Regardless of their mental state, I am glad to offer my commentary. 

[clist]

I believe saying people are smart enough to know something is the opposite of condescending.

You are probably right that I underestimate the impact that social media has on some people’s mindset when they infringe.  nevertheless, I still suspect that is a very small percentage who do not know the difference between sharing photos on social media and deploying them on a commercial website.

I believe that the overwhelming number of people who infringe do it based on assumptions that include, it feels like a victimless crime, it is easy to do, the chances of getting caught are small, they think if they get caught they will just get a warning, there are no major consequences if they do get caught, it is cheaper to infringe and deal with the rare consequences that it is to buy and track licenses.    Many of those assumptions are probably true, but none are based on ignorance that it is a violation of copyright.

Regardless of their mental state, I am glad to offer my commentary.

You're right, your assumptions imply that most scenarios involve people who know what they are doing is wrong..

That said, I truly believe that most people are unaware that they are even committing a crime.