Ask HN: Should I pay for a cartoon I used in my blog years ago?

1. You should not pay before talking to a lawyer. The $168 could be a trojan horse to open you up to more liability.

2. Possibly but unlikely.

3. Yes. "Removed as requested by $law_firm on behalf of CartoonStock.com"

4. No.

The best course of action would be to remove the cartoon, check for any other infringing content on your site, and ignore the request. Any other action should be preceded by talking to a lawyer.

Also keep in mind that there is a lot of ambiguity around linking - unless you were hosting the image, you didn't necessarily commit copyright infringement.

Finally, if you do reply to the request in any way, do so from your home address.

> Finally, if you do reply to the request in any way

I'd just let them track down your corporate agent and send mail there. I wouldn't reply to this letter.

IANAL but this is exactly what I would do.

You should verify you're dealing with the rightsholder or their representative, then take their offer, IMO. Paying a reasonable fee to license the cartoon, which is what they've offered you, is both legally and ethically the right thing to do.

You can't copy and distribute someone else's work without their permission. There is no requirement of malice, financial gain, or anything else to be in violation of their rights under copyright law. It's just not allowed, and that's the case in probably 100+ countries around the world, since 90-something were signatories to the WIPO treaties. Your use of the image doesn't fall under any of the fair use exemptions, and neither is ignorance of the law a defense. If they wanted to take you to court, you'd lose, and you'd almost definitely owe more than $168.

Take this to snail mail to confirm that they really are CartoonStock. Should you pay? Yes. Be prepared to pay the $168. A fee that size IS typical for a copyvio incident like yours, even if you didn't benefit financially. Not paying the $168 now, WILL cost you more after their lawyers rack up billable hours dealing with you.

Thank you all for your comments and support! While I did not derive any financial gain from this little cartoon, I wouldn't mind paying a one-off to the artist. However, this looks like a scam, or a way to get me to admit guilt. So here's what I plan to do: 1. remove the image and add a static "removed by request of rights holder" 2. ask for a written copy of the rights to the specific image, including where it was posted, who drew it, who owns the rights, and how did this company arrive at the price 3. I still think this is some sort of a cam, as there's no individual identified, and the address is a corporate address in Seattle (which could just be a drop point).

Thanks all!!

Seek legal consultation.

With that being said, if they own the right to publicity or copyrights now or represent the artist, it's going to be tough to fight. If it was a personal blog they may be able to go after you personally. But if they are a legitimate rights holder you will spend multiples more trying to fight it on the basis of not knowing about copyrights or not having made money from it.

You should request documentation to the matter and speak with an attorney.

Paying the $168 would be much cheaper than seeking legal consultation. And the lawyer would just tell him to pay up. As other commenters pointed out, it's a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement and he'd lose (at great expense) if he tried to fight it in court.

"Am I headed into major legal issues if I ignore this?"

If you ignore the notice, they'll take the case to court. If you don't show up at the trial to defend your case, they'll get a summary judgement against you and the court will order you to pay the $168 plus their attorneys fees.

> Paying the $168 would be much cheaper than seeking legal consultation

If it is a scam, that's exactly the type of thinking they count on.

Treat with caution - CartoonStock are a British company, based in Bath. I'm not aware of any US presence aside from a toll free number. Most UK Limited Liability Companies use UK lawyers too, so a Seattle based "law firm" representing them sounds somewhat fishy. Be careful.

I'd say $168.00 is reasonable and fair, and an inexpensive way to clear your conscience and square up with the creator/rightsholder.

> They have a long explanation about liability and such.

Can you summarize the liability explanation? Is the sender a lawyer/law firm or someone just claiming to be the copyright holder?

IANAL, ask them to provide how they arrived at $168.00 as economic value of the image. Similarly, you should estimate the economic value of the image to your blog/venture. Did you generate any income from the blog? Can you quantify the value contributed by image to your income? For example, if you were running advertisement on the page, could you quantify contribution of the page, that the image is on, to your total ad revenue?

Do not pay right away! Keep asking for more information like their validity of their claims of copyright, who owns the copyright? Where the image was posted? More work the sender has to do, less likely they will continue to badger you. In all requests, give them a definite time-period like 30 days / two weeks to respond.

I am very suspicious of such claims demanding monetary compensation unless such claims were preceded by take-down warnings and legal warnings from a lawyer/ law firm. My guess is the sender is a fraud and I am sure you are not the only one they are harassing. Such claims are like 'spam,' sender sends out thousands of them expecting some will pay. Do a Google search on the sender, sender email address, reverse-image search to find where else the image is posted. Contact some of them to see if they received similar demands.

Edit: If you decide to communicate with sender, I will suggest asking only one question in each email and then wait for response. Once you get response, then take a few days and ask another question. It will be a while before you run out of all your questions. You also get to see how determined the sender is to collect from you.

> ask them to provide how they arrived at $168.00 as economic value of the image?

It occurs to me this is a brilliant price point for a nuisance fee shake down. A crummy $168 makes this time-suck go away. What's your time worth? Of course there's nothing more gratifying than winning a principled fight. Even if you have to debate ad nauseam.

Yep, keep the amount low enough so that it is not worth the time for receiver to do much research or push-back.

"They don't care if I remove the image"

The above statement was the red-flag that tipped me of this being potentially a scammer. Any legitimate sender will request you to take-down the image or purchase the non-exclusive rights to the image.