Google Image Copyright Warning

[Ethel]

Not a question, but I found an article in the latest issue of Computer Active very interesting.

An amateur theatre company has a website and used a picture from Google Images on one of its pages to promote an event. There was no copyright or trade mark on the image, or rights warning.

The company received a non-negotiable bill for �964 for using the picture without permission. The picture copyright is owned by Getty Images and �964 is the standard fee for copyright infringement.

The charge was dropped only because Computer Active got involved but the company would have been well within its rights to pursue this through the courts - they would have won.

Now this is something any of us may do innocently so it pays to be aware of possible consequences.

[daffy654]

I have been fully aware of the laws concerning copyright of images for some time now.I used to be a regular user of MSN groups where the members all used a program called Paint Shop Pro to create signature tags.A couple of years ago a lot of artists(mainly fantasy art) started legal proceedings against some of the people making the tags.I did initially pay the artists to use some of the art concerned but it got to be a very expensive hobby so I stopped doing it.

[Ethel]

Thanks for that, daffy. Those tag creators can be very artistic - the eBay forums used to be full of them. A group of girls did them for a few pounds each to raise money for charity - very well they did too. :)

I take it your artists had 'stolen' fantasy art and edited it to personalise it.

I wouldn't like to get tangled up with Getty Images - a huge international organisation that can afford to chase people in court.

[daffy654]

I don't think most of them realised they had stolen the images Ethel,they assumed they could use them as they were freely available to copy from the internet.When it was pointed out to the honest tag makers they tried contacting artists to ask for permission,and some gave it.It sort of all came to a head in the end though because the dishonest tag makers never bothered to ask for permission and even claimed credit for the images,some even sold the finished tags! It was a messy business all round.
I never blamed the artists for wanting to stop the art being used as this was the way they made their living and they were losing money because of it.
I think there are very few people who are aware of the complexity of copyright laws.

[Oneeyedvic]

Yes, this has been running for a while. I know you often offer advice ethel, so please let people know that they can go onto Flickr and do a search for images that have a commercial licence.

[socket2008]

The average person in the street will save pics for use on their msn, home page etc. Most people do it.

How disgusting of getty images to try to pursue this though. Ultimately, though companies like getty need to get off this trip that they think they are losing out on an income by someone downloading something.

My pet hate are those music companies that think that because 10000 people download an album thats 10000 lost sales. Erm no. I read a survey last year which asked 1000 people that downloaded, would you have bought the album etc otherwise. 90% said no.

It's the same on you tube though. Thousands of people use music on videos, lots of old tv shows on there too.

The world is copyright obsessed and companies are just using it all to make a quick buck and an income stream by taking people to court. Pathetic. I've never agreed with royalties either. A radio station plays a song and they have to pay the artist. JOKE. That's another story though.

[wildwood]

Images or literature does not need to have a copyright sign or copyrighted warning below it. It is intellectual property and the unauthorised use of this is theft.