Copyright on website

[darmstadt]

More of a rant to let off steam really. I received an 'Abmhnung', basically a caution but slightly more serious, from a bunch of lawyers in Munich about an image that is on my website and that I am using it illegally and will probably be liable for royalties. What gets me is that the image is part of a theme in a software product which I bought and registered and is also available for download from the companies website. I wrote back with a number of attachments, i.e. screenshots, my license, etc. pointing this out but nope, they want their pound of flesh. I doubt very much that they have gone back to their client to check that this (pretty crap) image is in fact licensed to a 3rd party but just faxed me to say sign the papers to say that you know you're using it illegally. I've tried contacting the software company but no luck yet...

As it is I've now had to get a lawyer and at €230 per hour I now know I should have studied harder at school. Now I have to do loads of paperwork and hope that I don't get stung with horrendous royalty charges. Basically what it boils down to is that I am at fault for not checking who owns the licensing. The lawyer used an example that if I bought a car from someone and it was stolen, not only would I lose my money but I would have to return the car to the original owner. My riposte to that is, yes, if I had bought from an individual that I can understand that but if I bought a stolen car from a dealer then I would get my money back. He's still working that one out.

As it is I'm doing my best to get information from the software company about the licensing of the images they have and if I do find out that they are licensed then the tulip will hit the fan. If they are not licensed then the tulip will still hit the fan as this software is sold by many companies, including Amazon and my hosting provider in fact gives it away when you buy a hosting package from them...

[doodab]

What is the software?

I am guessing NetObjects Fusion.

http://forums.netobjects.com/showthr...ement-warning-!!

[darmstadt]

What is the software?

I am guessing NetObjects Fusion.

Netobjects Fusion Copyright Infringement warning !!!!

Nope, I've see they've had problems as well. This is Namo WebEditor...

[Wanderer]

they want their pound of flesh. I doubt very much that they have gone back to their client to check that this (pretty crap) image is in fact licensed to a 3rd party but just faxed me to say sign the papers to say that you know you're using it illegally. I've tried contacting the software company but no luck yet...

Sign NOTHING!!! Admit NOTHING!!! SAY NOTHING!!! You have the right to remain SILENT! Anything you say will be taken down and used in evidence against you. Now write that out 100 times!

As it is I've now had to get a lawyer and at €230 per hour

Blah, sounds like you are being taken for a ride by a bunch of copyright lawyers on a fishing troll.

Of course, the lawyers have a vested interest in stringing this one out. They know there's no case here but at €230 per hour they'll keep stringing you along. Here's my summary of the case: "You brought the rights to the image in good faith. You stopped using the image when you found out that you didn't have the rights to use it." You have a pretty reasonable defence in court.

Surely the licensing costs of an image aren't going to be more than a few tens of Euros are they? What is the nature of the image? Is it easily replaceable? If you can, I'd take the image down straight away and then just ignore them. If they are trolling then they will be looking at an extortionate fee to settle the case. If they keep going on at you, I'd be inclined to let the case go to court and then deal with it there.

The other thing to remember is that they are probably dealing with your Limited Company, NOT YOU PERSONALLY. Don't let this become personal, make it clear to them that it is your LTD company that is the defendant here.

hope that I don't get stung with horrendous royalty charges. Basically what it boils down to is that I am at fault for not checking who owns the licensing. The lawyer used an example that if I bought a car from someone and it was stolen, not only would I lose my money but I would have to return the car to the original owner. My riposte to that is, yes, if I had bought from an individual that I can understand that but if I bought a stolen car from a dealer then I would get my money back. He's still working that one out.

Good analogy.

Another analogy is that if you steal someone's car then they don't have a car any more. However, if you only look at someone's car then you don't deprive them of the enjoyment of the car. If they catch you looking at their car then you just say "Oh, sorry, I thought looking was free. I'll look away now and will never look at your car again." Then they say, you have to pay for looking at my car! So you ignore them and walk away.

[xoggoth]

Sounds absurd. Are you sure it isn't just some sort of con?

[darmstadt]

Sounds absurd. Are you sure it isn't just some sort of con?

Nope its not. The company who own the rights to it have it on their website and they're one of the largest in the world. German law is a bit funny that way although recently there has been a lot of 'cons' going on over the Internet here. Mostly people sign up to something on a website without reading the terms and agreements and suddenly receive lawyers letters asking for a load of money. Interestingly enough nearly everyone of those companies is registered as a Ltd. in the UK. I thought it was at first but after a trawl found out it wasn't, My lawyer is an expert in IT law, particularly this type, so we'll see.

[SueEllen]

Blah, sounds like you are being taken for a ride by a bunch of copyright lawyers on a fishing troll.

Of course, the lawyers have a vested interest in stringing this one out. They know there's no case here but at €230 per hour they'll keep stringing you along. Here's my summary of the case: "You brought the rights to the image in good faith. You stopped using the image when you found out that you didn't have the rights to use it." You have a pretty reasonable defence in court.

It's German law not English law.

With English law you do everything to look like you are compromising even if you have no intention of it.

[JobsAGoodUn]

On a related note to this thread, several years ago I contracted to a major household name IT company, and one of the things I had to include on the Internet web sites I worked on was a link relating to usage of the details and information on that web site.

These terms and conditions forbid anyone linking TO the site. If you were a distributor of their products then you would be given permission to do so, but otherwise not. As a contractor I wasn't allowed to link to the site, which could be a little inconvenient if I wanted to include that on my references page.

I explored the reasoning of this with the IT manager and apparently it was in place to stop porno and other sites including the company name/particulars. If someone typed in "XYZ Co" into Google then it is possible that sites with links to XYZ Co could come up, the user clicks on the link, and is greeted with a full frontal of Peter Tatchell or something. I also understood that the company would instruct lawyers if they needed to - they were pretty serious about it.

I suppose that a company can reach the turnover where it becomes viable to fight battles on this, and where they aren't desperate to get more links to them.