Copyright Infringement!!!

[Sysman]

Very probably. It could also be argued as theft (of bandwidth)! Just don't go there.

Bandwidth theft can be a problem - see The Slashdot effect, but even large companies with dirty great servers and fat pipes have a right to get upset if they perceive you passing off their work as your own.

For sure external links can be blocked, but that puts you in the territory of someone being able to measure billable hours incurred to incorporate such a fix.

[minestrone]

Very probably. It could also be argued as theft (of bandwidth)! Just don't go there.

I tried to wind AtW up on the fact he has not asked any web site owner permission to crawl their site.

He threatened he would get his lawyers onto me.

[threaded]

What we have here is a 'Channel Conflict', namely 'Perception Differences'

viz: Purveyor of fine seating, finds Tat shop advertising their wares.

How to resolve this depends on the nature of the conflict, but normally requires more effective communication.

So, I would suggest drawing a picture of a hand with it's middle digit raised, and faxing it to them.

HTH

[MarillionFan]

I have to say, 7 years Ive had shops now.

Supplier produces products & marketing to sell to retailer. Retailer puts in shop, online and sells to consumer. Supplier provides top notch pictures/advertising/photos to retailer. Retailer sells and orders from supplier.

Where the **** does a supplier get off selling you products and then telling you you can't advertise!!!!!

What a bunch of dumb cnuts!

[OwlHoot]

I tried to wind AtW up on the fact he has not asked any web site owner permission to crawl their site.

He threatened he would get his lawyers onto me.

Surely as long as the site is open, and the Majestic crawlers adhere to the robots.txt exclusion standard, and don't hammer the site to frequently, he has nothing to worry about.

(I tried to access http://www.robotstxt.org/. But ironically, that site is unavailable!)

[suityou01]

FFS. Just got a solicitors letter from one of my suppliers telling me to take down all images of their furniture, publish an apology and sign a letter that I won't do it again and that I agree to pay their costs and any associated damages!!!!

I have used their photos from their website to advertise two ranges of furniture. They manufacture the furniture and sell it to me. I use an online brochure to get orders!

I've spent £4k with them this year. They send me a catalogue of their images to use in the shop. So I used them on my website.

What the hell are they talking about?

I'm not signing tulip! More hassle for Monday!!!!

[centurian]

I tried to wind AtW up on the fact he has not asked any web site owner permission to crawl their site.

He threatened he would get his lawyers onto me.

Yep - remember that thread well

[centurian]

FFS. Just got a solicitors letter from one of my suppliers telling me to take down all images of their furniture, publish an apology and sign a letter that I won't do it again and that I agree to pay their costs and any associated damages!!!!

In order to sue for damages, there has to actually be a 'damage'. I.e. they have to have incurred a cost, or lost revenue because of it. Maybe they can demonstrate that they lost revenue by not being able to charge you for using the image.

If they used a professional photographer, then he/she might charge royalties for usage, so that might be where they are coming from.

Personally, I would take the images down and cancel the order, but do none of the rest. But then I'm not a lawyer.

[Sysman]

In order to sue for damages, there has to actually be a 'damage'. I.e. they have to have incurred a cost, or lost revenue because of it. Maybe they can demonstrate that they lost revenue by not being able to charge you for using the image.

If they used a professional photographer, then he/she might charge royalties for usage, so that might be where they are coming from.

Could be, and here's another thought. What if the photographer has come across the images on MF's web site and is kicking up a fuss with the manufacturer?

Back to crawlers, a couple of years ago I looked up something which was crawling my site and found a company which claims to "fingerprint" images, looking for unauthorised copies out there on the world wild web. Their customers included the likes of Ford, Coca Cola and Sony (IIRC).

Some ways to protect your images, another link. I really don't recommend tricks such as disabling right click; that one raises a red flag with me and I will find a way around it, even if just to satisfy my own curiosity. What dissuades me from nicking images is some suitable text asserting copyright.

I've never tried protecting my own images, but after what I saw yesterday at a Plan B client site*, 'tis something worth investigation. One thought is that watermarking you add doesn't need to be visible

It's a useful lesson for us all, so thanks for sharing it MF.

* some Youtube videos and other camera work have been ripped off. PlanB client reckons that 60% of one video was her own work.

[OwlHoot]

Personally, I would take the images down and cancel the order, but do none of the rest. But then I'm not a lawyer.

Apart from anything else, if you apologise or sign a letter, you'll be admitting liability for any damage or loss of revenue they later "discover".