BeeDeeDubbleU - 2:39 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Class action over what? Being charged for stealing someone elses images?

Yes. Several of the people involved got the images from other sources but Getty still say they are liable.

Actually I would be very surprised if there was a single person in this forum who is involved in web design and that has not knowingly or otherwise used an image illegally. Most of us are quite naive when we get into this business and it does happen. I thought I was squeaky clean until this happened. Did you know that you can be pursued for using a tiny button image belonging to someone else? The size of the image is immaterial.

This situation has opened up a whole new can of worms.

* Since you started in the business have you never downloaded an image, a graphic or a background from a "free" image or clip art site? The images there could have someone else's copyright and if you use them you would be liable.
* What would you do if one of your clients got a letter from Corbis about an image you had used on their site?
* If you look at all your past work do you have a record of the source of all the images you have used?
* When you add an image to a website do have an audit trail in place so that in future you can prove where it came from?
* When you create a graphic do you embed a digital watermark in it? If not what is to stop someone else claiming that it is theirs and taking you to court?

Remember that relates only to court costs and not the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

I appreciate that but I also understand that damages are set in relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff. How could they justify the loss of £2,400 because I used their shopping cart icon?

My understanding is that images are either fully protected or are fully in the public domain and "ignorance is no defence" is the usual line spun by the courts...

I am not so sure about that. As I said earlier the UK copyright act demands that ...

97.—(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy.

Regarding your other point, I will be adopting a wait and see policy for the time being. ;)