Image copyright issues on preowned domain?

[Tasha96]

Hi.

example.com is an international manufacturer and distributor of a product.
example.co.uk was owned by a seperate company who installed example.com products.

We sell example.com products throughout the UK and recently bought example.co.uk, just the url and not the whole business.

We have put our own content on the site and left as is.

Today we received an email from an image copyright company saying our website previously had a copyrighted photo and have asked for verification that we purchased the license or we need to pay a fee. They sent an attachment of the previous website and showed where the image was.

I have no contact with the previous owners of the url.

As I am now the owner of the URL am I liable for the previous copyright issues or is it up to the previous owners?

Thanks for any help.

 

[estwig]

Getty?

 

[Tasha96]

Getty?

Hi, no. Does this make a difference?
The company who email is picrights.com and they said they are contacting me on behalf of Press Association Images

 

[Matthew Lockland]

Sounds like copyright trolls / scammers to me. I would just ignore such emails.

 

[menetworkjadaltd]

Sounds like copyright trolls / scammers to me. I would just ignore such emails.

agreed

 

[Tasha96]

Sounds like copyright trolls / scammers to me. I would just ignore such emails.

agreed

Thanks for replying. I'm not going to reply until they try to contact with more documentation. But just incase, If the old owner of the domain had unlicensed content on their website am I liable as the new owner of the domain now for the previous owners activities?

 

[fisicx]

Was the website handed over when you brought the domain name?

 

[Matthew Lockland]

am I liable as the new owner of the domain now for the previous owners activities?

You are only liable for activities on the website from the date when you became the owner of the domain, which is known and verifiable.

 

[fisicx]

Are you 100% sure about this?

 

[estwig]

You are only liable for activities on the website from the date when you became the owner of the domain, which is known and verifiable.

So if I buy a stolen cordless drill from a bloke down the pub, not that I would but if I did, obviously it's not stolen anymore once I've got it.

If it's not Getty, then it's chancers, don't reply.

 

[Matthew Lockland]

So if I buy a stolen cordless drill from a bloke down the pub, not that I would but if I did, obviously it's not stolen anymore once I've got it.

If you were to hypothetically assume a situation that reflects the OP's case, you would not buy a stolen cordless drill (copyrighted image along with website code and content). You would buy the workshop (domain name) in which the stolen cordless drill had been used.

 

[fisicx]

If you buy the domain name and website you are responsible for ensuring all content is licensed. You can’t claim ignorance, copyright doesn’t work like that. If the site was live for a period of time after the domain name was transferred then there could be a case for a claim.

I agree though in this case they are probably chancers looking to make a quick buck. Which is why I asked the question: did the domain come with the website?

 

[DavidWH]

I'm pretty sure they could remove the drill if they could prove ownership, and it was stolen.

Bit like selling a car that has finance, they'll come take the car back.

Was the website handed over when you brought the domain name?

I would think this needs to be answered first... just because you bought the website, doesnt mean you bought the copyright to the images.

If you only purchased the domain, and you have a brand new site, and are not using the image they claim, then your possibly in a much stronger positition.

 

[estwig]

If you were to hypothetically assume a situation that reflects the OP's case, you would not buy a stolen cordless drill (copyrighted image along with website code and content). You would buy the workshop (domain name) in which the stolen cordless drill had been used.

I see your point and I'm no expert far from it.
In your very good analogy, the stolen cordless drill is still in the workshop being used, you may not have bought the drill with the workshop, but it's still in your possession and it's being used in your workshop.

 

[quikshop]

You are only liable for activities on the website from the date when you became the owner of the domain, which is known and verifiable.

In my opinion you are not liable if all you've bought is the URL through an ISP.

If however you bought the domain name from the previous owners then I've always found it useful to include a simple one page sales agreement that includes an indemnity clause along the lines of;

The Seller hereby indemnifies the buyer from all and any losses or claims resulting from actions taken directly or indirectly by the Seller on or before the date of this Agreement... or words to that effect but you get the idea.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

We have put our own content on the site and left as is.

Firstly they are not scammers.

Did you transfer the domain to a new server or did you just take it over as is? If APs image is still on the server you may have problems.

 

[antropy]

Surely you could just take the photo down? Might sound a bit silly but then you are not breaching any copyright? Alex

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Surely you could just take the photo down? Might sound a bit silly but then you are not breaching any copyright? Alex

Publishing an image without permission is breach of copyright.

 

[Matthew Lockland]

the stolen cordless drill is still in the workshop being used

No, it is not. As per OP, they only bought an empty building and not the equipment:

bought example.co.uk, just the url

By "url" I assume OP meant domain name.

And then they brought their own equipment:

We have put our own content on the site

If, however, the equipment was included in the sale, the responsibility for it begins from the moment the ownership is transferred.

 

[antropy]

Today we received an email from an image copyright company saying our website previously had a copyrighted photo and have asked for verification that we purchased the license or we need to pay a fee. They sent an attachment of the previous website and showed where the image was.

Reply with proof of when you purchased the domain which proves it wasn't you and that's that.

Paul

 

[fisicx]

Reply with proof of when you purchased the domain which proves it wasn't you and that's that.

But it's not clear if they just brought the domain name. I read it that they got the domain name with the website and changed the content.

 

[antropy]

But it's not clear if they just brought the domain name. I read it that they got the domain name with the website and changed the content.

*bought

And maybe indeed. OP please clarify.

Paul

 

[DavidWH]

Even if they bought the domain name & the website, I doubt the licence from AP for the image will allow it to transfer to someone else, and would require a new licence.

 

[Karimbo]

back to the subject matter at hand.

You are not liable for the previous tenants debts & crimes. When you buy a domain you effectively rent it from ICANN, it's not yours, you just pay for the rental and you have rights to infinitely extend your rental, which sort of makes it yours as long as you can pay for it.

Just do a google search of picrights, that should tell you all you need to know, they're scammers and they go out looking to get compensation from people who have rehosted someone elses pictures, but they dont act on behalf of the copyright owners nor do the copyright owners have any knowledge of what pictrights are doing.

If I were you I would waste their time and stop them from vicitimising other people, pretend to be thick as shit and go backwards and forwards 20+ emails, requesting the send proof, documention etc. basically make them work. Then just go radio silent.

 

[fisicx]

back to the subject matter at hand.

You are not liable for the previous tenants debts & crimes.

Unless you buy the website with the domain name and publish the same images without permission.

 

[Karimbo]

I would suggest you go back and reread the first post. It doesn't read to me like they put the previous stuff back on.

Op says they just bought the domain and not the website. Op says they built the website from scratch.

They mention the website had copyrighted content in the past tense, and that the the previous owner did it.

The op hasn't come back to clarify exactly what the situation is but IMHO it's pretty clear

 

[fisicx]

I read the opposite. They said brought the domain not the business. They could be using the word 'domain' to mean the domain name and website.

They said they changed the content on the website not 'we built a new website'.

 

[Karimbo]

They don't use the word domain, the use the word url. They say they put up their own content, not "changed content". They say that they have no contact with previous owners which suggests they never got anything transferred over from previous owner to reupload.

Why are you not reading the op and just barking up the wrong tree?

 

[fisicx]

That may be the case. But until the OP returns and clarifies the situation we will never know.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

That may be the case. But until the OP returns and clarifies the situation we will never know.

It is a common thing with copyright posts; the OP hardly ever comes back to explain fully what they have done.

Karimbo, I know several photographers who use Picrights and other services to find and chase infringements. They are far from scammers.

 

[rizbit]

I got an email from picrights they said they are acting on behalf of Press Association Images for some photo of cast of suicide squad that had been used on a personal blog.

The image was taken down.

The image was sourced from Google long time ago using the "free for reuse" or "free with modifcation" settings on Google Images.

Searching Google and Press Association Images now I cant see the exact image in question anywhere.

They have sent 2 emails and now demanding £109 to settle the matter for using the image in the past.

I have not replied as tbh I cant afford to pay that for an image I never really needed and it was marked as free on google. Also it was on a personal blog page which had about 10 views over a year, half of those were prob from me.

I had read many people saying they are scammers / phishers / or just bullies trying to squeeze money from anyone who responds. Some people say they are legit company. Some users have responded to similar emails and actually paid, others say they ignore them.

Their address on the email is a PO Box 61182 address from Anne Sinclair, on companies houses their uk office is not even registered in London, but the PO box is in London.

Has anyone ignored the emails and what happened?

What would be the best advice in this situation?

 

[obscure]

The image was taken down.

Irrelevant - it was used and, if you didn't have permission/a valid license from the copyright holder, they can sue for infringement.

The image was sourced from Google long time ago using the "free for reuse" or "free with modifcation" settings on Google Images.

I am not aware of any such "free" setting on Google. Can you point out exactly where this setting can be found.

......I never really needed and it was marked as free on google. Also it was on a personal blog page which had about 10 views over a year, half of those were prob from me.

Sadly none of this makes any difference. If you didn't need it you shouldn't have used it... but you did.

I had read many people saying they are scammers / phishers / or just bullies trying to squeeze money from anyone who responds. Some people say they are legit company.

The people complaining are the ones caught infringing someone else's copyright. The ones saying they are legit are the ones whose copyright was infringed. Lots of people also complain about speeding tickets and parking tickets. - People don't like being caught breaking the law.

What would be the best advice in this situation?

Do you have a valid license from the copyright owner? If not then I think you have three options....

1. Ignore them and hope they decide not to pursue - the risk here is that if they pursue then it ends up being more expensive.
2. Settle now - If you decide to do this you should first ask for proof that they are the copyright holder or that they have the legal power to act on their behalf.

 

[ukbf0001]

1. It's probably scammers unless it's getty - get them to write to you - and see what happens.

2. Contact the previous owner of the domain and ask them for proof of purchase over said images - and see what they say. Having said that - say you send proof of purchase to the 'copyright' owner - what is to stop them taking your proof of purchase and using that themselves as proof ?

 

[paulears]

The company is a one band band in a block of offices in boredom wood - run by a 39 year old French lady - very small business, but before you say scam - think about it. Getty Images generate thousands by illegal use of their property. With reverse search and way back machine, it's not impossible to come up with a business model here. Find websites using images illegally - which as the Press Association images are protected and easily searchable, then if they offer a free service catching the illegal users in return for a fee, it's quite a legitimate business. Ignoring what could be a genuine claim won't help when they slap in the IP claim online, just like Getty do. They'll show they tried to contact you, and that you did not respond. They appear to have said they are calling on behalf of AP - which might be true. Nicking a picture of Google is a minefield. Google cannot control rights they do not have. If the image belonged to AP, and was used without clearing the rights, a claim could exist.

Your job is to prove that you had no hand in it, and it was a previous incarnation of the web address run by somebody else. If you can prove that, you would seem safe. I agree that it is probably a scam, but run by a registered Ltd company, in the UK. They exist, so they may well have an interest in the images the website had up at some point.

 

[ukbf0001]

Why not wait until they take the matter to small claims court in the UK, then offer to remove the image. You could always charge them an admin fee - similar to whatever their invoice amount is.

If the image does have copyright , then I'd remove it anyway. I would also ignore any emails from them, let them go to the relevant domain authority or the hosting company first.

If they were that concerned about an image they would issue a cease and desist order first. I suspect they are interested only in your money - which they can have IF they want to take you to court.

Non payment of an 'invoice' is a civil matter not a criminal one. Keep us informed of developments

 

[paulears]

Knowing about something and just hoping is pretty dismal advice. The IP courts are well up to speed, and while burying the head in the sand might work - it's not guaranteed. I suppose it's Dirty Harry syndrome. How lucky do you feel? Clearly the image was used at some time in the past. The argument is about who is responsible really. Hopefully the old owner, but that does rather assume an awful lot. Offering to remove images does not mitigate very well. The next question is when were you told. November - yet you didn't do anything? What would the judges response be?

 

[ukbf0001]

What if the previous owner of the domain is A Dead B Left the country C. Not contactable ? anyway...

Just search up on various image infringement copyright cases and take a look for yourself.

Court Rules Images That Are Found and Used From the Internet Are 'Fair Use'

The 10 Most Famous Copyright Cases In Photography

And to counter some of the above - Roni Loren has an interesting tale from the USA where people seem to sue each other on a daily basis

If someone wants money from you - for whatever reason - let them issue the correct proceedings against you in the UK small claims court. If they are scammers - they wont issue proceedings will they. .

FAO Obscure - the free for re use is an option under Google Image Search - Tools - Settings

Interesting point - Google stores and displays these images in it's index - how come Getty dont sue Google ?

Paul - I think your business model may well be correct - I would think though - they never issue any court proceedings as there is too much low hanging fruit to pick. People tend to panic when they get these emails - and I wonder how many just pay up and delete. Only for the company in Boreham wood - to post more copyrighted images - wait for people to use them - and then threaten them. Easy money.

 

[paulears]

Trouble is, we're in the UK and have a very efficient IP court system. Research some of their rulings, including Getty ones and you'll see the way the court deal with it. Taking an image from the net is extremely risky. I suspect Getty rather like Google's way of working, because Google store links, not the files as I understand it. We're quite advanced with rights here. There are some great stories. May favourite (from memory) was when somebody removed a watermark on an image from Google. The judge decided this proved the user knew it was copyright protected and went to some effort to disguise the source - the fines were pretty steep.

Law Society comments on the IP court here https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/specialised-court-encourages-boom-in-ip-cases/5061244.article

This is quite informative too http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.co...r-copyright-infringement-more-than-flagrancy/

 

[DavidWH]

@bluenun both those links appear to be relevant to the USA.

The IP courts are well up to speed

Trouble is, we're in the UK and have a very efficient IP court system.

@paulears I would beg to differ on this, after securing a judgment in the IPEC in Nov 17, it still hasn't been added to the public register of judgments, fines & orders, despite my initial complaint resulting in them confirming they should. 12months on it still hasn't.

Whoever takes a case to court will need to either prove they own the copyright, or that they are acting on behalf of the copyright holder. Just as we did when we took someone to court.

It is easy to take a case to court, and the judges at the IPEC are very clued up on the law, and as Paul says, offer very generous uplifts for those who take the pi$$

Here's our story, and we did ourselves. https://www.seymoursignandprint.co.uk/judgement-secured-against-peterborough-sign-company-at-ipec/

 

[ukbf0001]

Looks like I have some reading material sorted for tonight then.

I just remembered a similar anecdote to your experience SSP. I discovered a scam being used against a friends company. Lets say it's widgets, a person had used both Yell and Google maps and registered a rival company, had given all the correct address details, not given a website but had given a phone number. BUT the phone number went to his business instead. So people thought they were calling the Widget Company A, when in fact they were calling Company A's main rival.

They claimed it was someone else

Re your case - they should have turned up in court, the fact they didnt they have accepted they'd lose. If they went down the route of an Indian based software company etc - and could prove it and offered to removed the images / replace signage etc - I wonder what would have happened.

Going back to the OP - I still think this is scam / shock tactic. They know some people will roll over. Like someone said - if they go to court they have to prove that they are the copyright holder - rather than Joe Bloggs. Interesting to see what develops.