How much trouble for using copywritten images?

[Nick_Jinn]

Lets say you wanted to sell something on ebay, a product that is mass produced overseas....lets say a common jewelry design.....hundreds of vendors selling the exact same thing...Anyway, one person took a picture and used it for their web store....a second person who isnt really a shop who just sells a few items casually here and there steals the image and uses for an ebay add......grand total profits are under $100. The person after being notified ceased and desisted, removed the image on request immediately.

Could this person be facing serious penalties? Realsitcally, could an international case be filed against them in practice?


Also of note, a disclaimer was added in this hypothetical scenario that the image is an approximation and that the images were found on google and are the closest representation available. This on one hand be an admission, but on the other is using it as a comparison rather than claiming something that is not theirs.

[lloyd_b]

This is a question of law, and so the only way to get a *real* answer is to ask a lawyer.

That said - if the person received a C&D letter, and complied with it, then it's *very* unlikely that any suit to be filed.

Pursuing a copyright suit can get *very* expensive, and there's no guarantee that the person filing the suit will be able to recover his expenses from the suit. No sane businessperson will even file such a suit unless he/she feels it is *necessary* to do so. If the C&D letter has been complied with, then it is not necessary.

Also note that there is no such thing as "international copyright law" - the laws on copyright vary from nation to nation. The use of the photo may or may not even be an infringing act in the nation where that person lives.

Lloyd B.

[Rasa1111]

I *highly* doubt said person has/would have anything to worry about. ;)

[phrostbyte]

Hypothetically you could be liable for like $150,000 in damages (or more). Likelihood of this happening are close to nothing.

[Nick_Jinn]

After doing a little research it appears that said person it probably off the hook if they can claim good faith or good cause to believe that they acted on fair use.....difficult to prove otherwise if a reasonable argument can be made.


Fair use says that an image must be unique and have 'originality' to be patentable......snapshot of some generic product that is sold by a thousand different vendors, with no fancy additions or models or unique artistic depiction.....this is not patentable even if you were the one who took the shot, because it lacks originality....Using a blue background instead of an off white one doesnt cut it.....or at least that is a reasonable argument for presumption of fair use, which can be enough on its own.


Fair use rocks.

[Bachstelze]

"copywritten"?

[McRat]

"copywritten"?

Copyrighted is correct, but you are seeing copywritten more and more.

Kind of like donut or thru, except not a shorter version.

[Nick_Jinn]

Americans tend to spell things differently. UK Enlish isnt US English.....I dont know if Copywritten is correct or not, but I am not a spelling nazi and I am pretty sure that everyone knows what I am talking about.

Donut is a correct spelling.

[McRat]

Americans tend to spell things differently. UK Enlish isnt US English.....I dont know if Copywritten is correct or not, but I am not a spelling nazi and I am pretty sure that everyone knows what I am talking about.

Donut is a correct spelling.

Today it is. When I was young it was doughnut. "Donut" was like "nite" or "thru", except it migrated from slang to proper spelling (or is in transition).

[Nick_Jinn]

Doughnut isnt even in my spellcheck. Donut is though.....Doughnut comes back as a misspelling. Its also rather wasteful to use so many silent letters when Donut looks simple and is phonetically perfect.

Maybe I should copyright some slang words and charge everyone a penny every time they spell something that way.