How using Google Images can cost you $8,000 | Hacker News Reader

How using Google Images can cost you $8,000

prdaily.com

23 pointsPhilipA23 comments

> How using Google Images can cost you $8,000

Better title: “How wilfully infringing copyright can cost you $3,000”

> We were under the mistaken impression that before anyone could be sued, the offender had to ignore a request to take down the copyrighted image.

That’s only if a third party, i.e. not you, put it up on your site.

Deleted comment

The images themselves aren't illegal, and in the US search engines are covered by the online service provider safe harbor if they follow the rules.

You might as well ask what normal Google search is really for, since any text Google links to is also, in your words, “illegal”.

Depends on the purpose you use them for.

Wait, so someone is surprised that taking an image they found through Google image search and just pasted onto their blog is copyright infringement?

What did they think would happen?

Indeed. This isn't some weird edge case or complicated situation. Anyone who has even glanced at copyright law knows that fair use doesn't cover accidents, resizing, linking, non-commercial use, and disclaimers. "Don't grab random images from Google" is pretty much the first lesson you learn about copyright, and no, changing it a little bit or giving a link doesn't automatically give you the right to use it.

A company specializing in content-based sites not knowing this is like a physicist not knowing f=ma.

2. We should’ve noticed that the photo used in the blog wasn’t up to par. It just wasn’t a good shot, and there are about 5,000 others would’ve been better suited for the post.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything here except sour grapes grumbling. "Yes, we took the photo, but it was a bad photo"

Yeah, I got the impression from the very first line ("What’s lamer than a crappy photo of Nebraska? Having to pay $8,000 in copyright infringement penalties for it.") that this article was written by someone who didn't really want to think things through.

I mean, if it was a crappy photo, why did you use it in the first place?

And it give you a hint that a good photo is not something of trivial value.

Flagged, because this is a complete non-story. It's not interesting, it's not well written, they probably feel like they've come out ahead by getting lots of views for their crappy blog. I know everyone on HN wants to pile on and show how smart they are that, but it's basically just long-form flamebait and we've been sucked in.

This is one of those rare examples where copyright enforcers have my support. There's just too much image theft on the 'net. I would like to find out the name of the lawyer who got $3K out of them. I've had pics stolen, and usually there's no recourse. DMCA helps, but how long can you sit around monitoring the 'net?

The original fine was $8000, which the author reports as nearly $100 per hit. While I agree with copyright enforcement of stolen photographs, I do not believe this is a proportional punishment.

I'm also surprised that hotlinking files still counts. I'm hesitant to endorse anything that criminalises linking to a web resource.

"I’d like to say that we’re just the unlucky victims of an isolated incident"

No, you aren't the victim here.

Few things jump out at me..

1. It cost $3000, not $8000 - what the lawyer originally demands doesn't have much to do with how much it costs. Still a lot of cash? Sure, but less than half the title.

2. If publishing material is your business, it's pretty strange that you don't know some basics of current copyright laws. The list of "even ifs" is a bit worrying/misleading. Someone knew the image was copyrighted, since that's the default unless it's expressly royalty free. DMCA safe harbour is meant for providers that display user-generated content, not publishers who write and (presumably) edit blog posts.

3. What would the author of this post do if their copyrighted content (maybe a blog post?) was published on another site for profit? Maybe they'd send a nice takedown notice, maybe they'd ignore it and hope for the exposure, but maybe - especially after a while - they'd have a lawyer ask for some money, if they thought it was hurting their business.

So, yeah. Heed this lesson if you publish stuff, and use the heaps of royalty free images out there. Or (gasp) pay for them.

TL;DR Don't steal pics off the internet for your business. It'll cost you money. We were too stupid to read what a "copyright" was.

You used a photo without attribution or permission in order to push your own content. Just because you found something doesn't mean you can use it.

The author of this post works for http://www.contentfac.com/, a digital PR/branding firm. How did they not know this? If I took a logo they made and used it for my own company, I'd expect them to have the exact same reaction.

Well, while this particular incident hit people who "Should Have Known It Better" (and maybe deserved their fate), on the base of the same laws there are countless other victims - parents of blogging kids, normal "everyday" people who just aren't fucking lawyers expected to differentiate between a freely usable and a restricted image - being extorted by ridiculous claims.

In Germany, we had nasty trolls who got their pictures (e.g. for cooking recipes, but there were also lots of similar schemes) high up in Google Image search and sued countless people for extraordinary amounts of cash.

Originally posted at: http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-a...

Beware, awful overlay asking you to subscribe to their emails (which probably are more of this crap)

Glad I'm immune to such modal boxes.

Before I can even consciously notice them, my reflex action is to press escape or click on the close icon :)

How is this news to them? Have they never read the creative commons licenses and realised that they don't have all the rights listed by default?

I'm not sure how these guys ended up making money by writing web content and didn't know their copyright ABCs...

They are lucky it was only $8000 ;) All my images have their copyright registered

Reply on news.ycombinator.com