Forum Moderators: not2easy
A few years ago he built his business web site and in the process he used Google Images to find "just the right image" that he was looking for.
A few weeks ago he received notice that the person who owns the image was claiming copyright infringement (which seems obviously correct) and the person was demanding $4,000 for the use of the image. Saying that the owner couldn't get in touch with my friend, it was turned over to a collection agency. It is actually the collection agency who has sent him notice.
The collection agency appears to be legit. Their web site says they are based in Toronto, CA. My friend is in the US. Their bill does say "open to negotiation".
I run a large user-content site and can't believe this happened to my friend and not me... I don't know what advice to give him. Is this a shakedown? My friend is obviously in the wrong, but does that mean he as to pay the 4 grand?
Any advice would be appreciated.
I assume the image has been removed.
The collection agency has nothing more than a bill for a random amount. No mention of judgment legally awarded. No telling how aggressive they might be if they think that there is money to be had. They get a big cut of what they recover. The owner is giving up a big chunk of whatever they get, but no effort on his part and he's got somebody hounding your friend.
It's unlikely the owner was damaged, but was your friend enriched? How important was the image? A minor graphic element, or integrated into a company logo?
For best advice he really needs an internet specialist lawyer to advise worst case scenario, likeliest scenario, and such. I'd let the lawyer respond to the collection agency and not respond myself unless maybe taking a stab at denying the bill, denying the validity of the amount, denying any agreement.....and see if they will offer to settle low in order to settle fast. Fast money is easy money. Slow money is a hassle and they have already indicated that the amount can be negotiated. Maybe a lot if a deal is struck quickly. The lawyer will be expensive quick, so a fast buyout might be worth a try. But I would deny, deny, deny, all the way through (without actually lying), expressing my shock at such an exorbitant bill that has no standing.....
Now, stick it in place of the offending image. Problem sorted.
This, by the way, is not my own advice, but that of a senior executive in the industry. This particular person, by all accounts, raised the bar when it came to finding industry fun on quiet Friday afternoons.
Of course, that's pure hearsay... ;-)
Syzygy
By the time it gets to a "collection agency" all you have to do is wait 'em out. They are not the original injured party and have a lesser legal standing in any issue.
That said, get a freakin' lawyer! Don't be stoopid!
AND, drag Google in, too. If the image was copyrighted and not available, why was it available on Google? And why did the copyright owner NOT protect their image and prevent Google from displaying?
Don't see the above as at all relevant, except to obfuscate. Take it down and it will probably go away, but I would let my internet specialist lawyer clean this up. Handle it once and lesson learned.
Don't see the above as at all relevant, except to obfuscate. Take it down and it will probably go away, but I would let my internet specialist lawyer clean this up. Handle it once and lesson learned.
Works for me. In reality an immediate removal of the ALLEGED offense and IGNORING DEMANDS solves the problem. No head in the sand, merely an understanding of expenses. There comes a point where pursuit of alleged damages is more costly than the perceived use. These guys are out for a quick fix (payment) and depend on the second party to run scared (and pay). Take it down and wait. Costs you nothing. You have made no admissions, but have responded to what is, essentially, a DCMA.
They have to prove damages and a malicious tort on your part. Get the lawyer, of course, but don't run scared. Meanwhile, make sure you spread the wealth of potential blame...and Google is part of that. (And I know there are those out there who dislike that statement, but get on the wrong end of a lawsuit and see how that changes!)
