For the last six months, I have been getting at least three
phone calls or emails a week from clients, all of whom run
legitimate businesses with robust websites, and all of whom have
gotten letters from photographers (mostly their representatives)
seeking licensing fees for photos that have been posted without
permission. Many of these photos have been on these websites
without incident for years.
For a long time now, people have generally felt it appropriate to
go onto various image search engines, find a photo for a
newsletter, website, or other publication, and then cut and paste
it into their publication or website. This trend did not generally
apply to hard copy publications, because when you cut and paste
something from the internet, the quality is not sufficient to
reproduce in hard copy, as it pixilates and becomes distorted.
However, because of the limited resolution of computer monitors, a
cut and pasted image looks perfectly fine when copied to a website.
As a result, based on ignorance of copyright law, believing in the
myth of "it is on the internet so I can use it," or
simply thinking the chances of getting caught were so minimal that
it was worth the risk, hundreds of thousands of images have
probably been cut and pasted without license and put on third-party
websites and on-line publications.
One of the reasons this was so easy to get away with in the past
was there was no effective way for photographers to find unlicensed
uses of their work. When you went onto the various search
engines' image sections, what they were doing was searching for
text surrounding images and offering up all sorts of related and
unrelated images. A search of "Ronald Reagan" would
result in pictures of Ronald Reagan, the Ronald Reagan Building,
Ronald Reagan Airport, Ronald Reagan Highway, etc. Recently,
photographers, wire services, and photo agencies large and small
have either acquired new technology or engaged search companies
that have image searching technology. These types of entities are
now searching for images themselves. If you would like to see an
example of how this works, you can go to www.tineye.com and upload an image
(it's free), and you will see instantly how it scours the open
internet, finds every use of the image, and gives you the website
attached to it.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 15-2078 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patentee Wasica Finance discovered, among other things, the importance of using consistent terminology in the patent specification and claims.
While under attack for several years now, the patent infringement defense of laches was dealt a serious, and likely final, blow by the recent Supreme Court case of SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC et al.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company's ("MedCo") patents-in-suit.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).