Image Piracy

Storm clouds are gathering: People who are "appropriating" images off the web are going to get caught by methods they aren't even aware of. When they are, they are going to be paying penalties they never dreamed of. The party's over...

It's happening; people are stealing

We know it, you know it, everybody knows it. It's not fair; it's not right; and the photographic community is going to do what's necessary to put an end to it.

And the way that's going to happen is that "infringers" (people who use photos without permission) are going to be chased down and "examples" are going to be made of them, supported by a massive PR campaign to make sure everybody takes notice and begins to understand the stuff you're going to see in this document.

The thing to remember is that the law -- the copyright and "intellectual property" law -- anticipates how easy it is for thievery to take place: So, incorporated in the rationale of the law itself is the notion that the only way to stop the easy larceny is to make the penalties so severe that even if the chances of getting caught are relatively slim, those penalties are sufficiently Draconian so as to ensure that is not worth the risk. In other words, the deterrent lies in the notion that, okay, you probably won't get caught, but, if you do, the results are going to be catastrophic for you.

And they can be exactly that, as you'll see in the section of this document on penalties.

Which leads to reason number two...
A lot of people don't get it ...
Professional designers of long standing are well aware of these "intellectual property" laws. After all, what they do is intellectual property, too, and they understand the need to protect it.

But, with the advent of the Internet which makes digital versions of images readily available and easily downloadable, there are a lot of relative neophytes who don't understand that just because you can do something (download the images) that doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.

In addition, even in those cases where the person does understand that they're doing something they're not supposed to, they think that the totality of the "bad things" that might happen to them as a result is nothing more than having to to pay for the image-- what they would have had to pay, anyway, if they had purchased it "up front" as they are supposed to.

They have no idea that, in fact, the owner of the intellectual property will go after them for "infringement of lawful copyright" that holds penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement. That can be a seriously rude awakening, almost the definition of a bad day.

So, one of the reasons we're offering this document is provide a bit of a "heads up" for those who have no idea what sort of risk they're taking if they use images without permission. Ignorance is only bliss until you have lawyers on your doorstep.
-----------------------
To update you on copyright law, read below.

Avoid copying or otherwise using images you find on web pages without permission of the copyright owner.

These and other uses violate Federal copyright law. The copyright owner can sue infringers for damages (the owner's lost profit), profits (any profit the infringer made), statutory damages (up to $10,000 and as much as $50,000 for willful infringement), and attorney's fees and costs. They can get injunctive relief, and infringing copies and the equipment used to produce them can be impounded and destroyed. (Ie. computers, printers, etc)

It is also a criminal act to violate Federal copyright law (see 17 U.S.C.A.§ 506). It may qualify as a Federal misdemeanor (with a fine as much as $10,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.) Not including what you will be sued for.

Don't Copy, Modify or Display Images You Find
The Copyright act gives the copyright owner (photographer) the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.

Modifying a work, say by cropping, coloring, distorting, enlarging, etc. is not a way around this law. Creating a derivative work "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" is an infringement.

If you take a copyrighted image without permission, and put it on a web page, web site, print on a photo etc... you are violating the exclusive right of the copyright owner to display his work. (See 17 U.S.C.A. § 106).

paying penalties they never dreamed of. The party's over...

It's happening; people are stealing

We know it, you know it, everybody knows it. It's not fair; it's not right; and the photographic community is going to do what's necessary to put an end to it.

And the way that's going to happen is that "infringers" (people who use photos without permission) are going to be chased down and "examples" are going to be made of them, supported by a massive PR campaign to make sure everybody takes notice and begins to understand the stuff you're going to see in this document.

The thing to remember is that the law -- the copyright and "intellectual property" law -- anticipates how easy it is for thievery to take place: So, incorporated in the rationale of the law itself is the notion that the only way to stop the easy larceny is to make the penalties so severe that even if the chances of getting caught are relatively slim, those penalties are sufficiently Draconian so as to ensure that is not worth the risk. In other words, the deterrent lies in the notion that, okay, you probably won't get caught, but, if you do, the results are going to be catastrophic for you.

And they can be exactly that, as you'll see in the section of this document on penalties.

Which leads to reason number two...
A lot of people don't get it ...
Professional designers of long standing are well aware of these "intellectual property" laws. After all, what they do is intellectual property, too, and they understand the need to protect it.

But, with the advent of the Internet which makes digital versions of images readily available and easily downloadable, there are a lot of relative neophytes who don't understand that just because you can do something (download the images) that doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.

In addition, even in those cases where the person does understand that they're doing something they're not supposed to, they think that the totality of the "bad things" that might happen to them as a result is nothing more than having to to pay for the image-- what they would have had to pay, anyway, if they had purchased it "up front" as they are supposed to.

They have no idea that, in fact, the owner of the intellectual property will go after them for "infringement of lawful copyright" that holds penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement. That can be a seriously rude awakening, almost the definition of a bad day.

So, one of the reasons we're offering this document is provide a bit of a "heads up" for those who have no idea what sort of risk they're taking if they use images without permission. Ignorance is only bliss until you have lawyers on your doorstep.
-----------------------
To update you on copyright law, read below.

Avoid copying or otherwise using images you find on web pages without permission of the copyright owner.

These and other uses violate Federal copyright law. The copyright owner can sue infringers for damages (the owner's lost profit), profits (any profit the infringer made), statutory damages (up to $10,000 and as much as $50,000 for willful infringement), and attorney's fees and costs. They can get injunctive relief, and infringing copies and the equipment used to produce them can be impounded and destroyed. (Ie. computers, printers, etc)

It is also a criminal act to violate Federal copyright law (see 17 U.S.C.A.§ 506). It may qualify as a Federal misdemeanor (with a fine as much as $10,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.) Not including what you will be sued for.

Don't Copy, Modify or Display Images You Find
The Copyright act gives the copyright owner (photographer) the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.

Modifying a work, say by cropping, coloring, distorting, enlarging, etc. is not a way around this law. Creating a derivative work "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" is an infringement.

If you take a copyrighted image without permission, and put it on a web page, web site, print on a photo etc... you are violating the exclusive right of the copyright owner to display his work. (See 17 U.S.C.A. § 106).

What does "Intellectual Property" mean?

"Intellectual property" refers to original creations in the fields of literature and the arts. Most countries in the world provide automatic copyright protection to any item of intellectual property at the instant the item is created. At the moment a photo is taken, it automatically becomes the "intellectual property" of the photographer who took it. It makes no difference what the subject is or why the photograph was taken.

The key word here is "property". The form that property takes is "intellectual", meaning that while a bicycle is created by your hands, a piece of "intellectual property" is created with your mind. But it is as real and as protected as any other kind of "property".

If I created it, I own it, and you can't steal it or even use it without my permission, any more so than you could do with my bicycle.

What does "Copyright" mean?

When I create a piece of intellectual property, it is mine to do with what I will, or NOT do with as I will. I am said to have the "copyright" on it, and nobody else can use it without my permission.



I do, however, have the obligation to take steps to let people know that it is "copyrighted". That's why you see the little © symbol all the time. It is there to say, "Hey, don't screw around: this is intellectual property and somebody owns it."

Again, we emphasize the word "property". It's my bicycle and you can't run off with it or even ride it around without my permission.

Many people erroneously believe that the only way you can secure a copyright on a piece of intellectual property is by filing it with the government "Registrar of Copyrights". With the revision of the Copyright Act in 1976, this requirement was lifted: The instant you create it, you own the copyright on it, whether you "register" it with the government or not.

Nonetheless, most photo agencies DO register their images with the Registrar. Why? Because, if someone infringes the copyright, images that are registered can command greater penalties than would be the case if they are not registered.

We'll put that another way: Photo agencies register their images so that if they catch you using one without permission they can absolutely hammer you, which is exactly what they're going to do.

What is "Infringement of Copyright"?

It's not shoplifting; it's not stealing a bicycle, and it's not punching someone in the nose. It's using a piece of intellectual property without permission and, arguably, the penalties for doing so are a lot more severe than for the other things we just mentioned.

And here's where it gets even dicier:

If someone accuses you of stealing their bicycle, they have to prove you did it. With intellectual property, if you are using, say, a photo, and someone can demonstrate they have the copyright on that photo, they do not have to prove that you don't have permission -- you have to prove that YOU do. This is an important concept, and we'll talk about it in greater detail later on in this document. But for now, just bear this in mind: If you steal an image, you have just infringed someone's lawful copyright and there are about 200 years' worth of laws in place to provide the copyright holder with remedies that you are definitely not going to like.

protection to any item of intellectual property at the instant the item is created. At the moment a photo is taken, it automatically becomes the "intellectual property" of the photographer who took it. It makes no difference what the subject is or why the photograph was taken.

The key word here is "property". The form that property takes is "intellectual", meaning that while a bicycle is created by your hands, a piece of "intellectual property" is created with your mind. But it is as real and as protected as any other kind of "property".

If I created it, I own it, and you can't steal it or even use it without my permission, any more so than you could do with my bicycle.

What does "Copyright" mean?

When I create a piece of intellectual property, it is mine to do with what I will, or NOT do with as I will. I am said to have the "copyright" on it, and nobody else can use it without my permission.



I do, however, have the obligation to take steps to let people know that it is "copyrighted". That's why you see the little © symbol all the time. It is there to say, "Hey, don't screw around: this is intellectual property and somebody owns it."

Again, we emphasize the word "property". It's my bicycle and you can't run off with it or even ride it around without my permission.

Many people erroneously believe that the only way you can secure a copyright on a piece of intellectual property is by filing it with the government "Registrar of Copyrights". With the revision of the Copyright Act in 1976, this requirement was lifted: The instant you create it, you own the copyright on it, whether you "register" it with the government or not.

Nonetheless, most photo agencies DO register their images with the Registrar. Why? Because, if someone infringes the copyright, images that are registered can command greater penalties than would be the case if they are not registered.

We'll put that another way: Photo agencies register their images so that if they catch you using one without permission they can absolutely hammer you, which is exactly what they're going to do.

What is "Infringement of Copyright"?

It's not shoplifting; it's not stealing a bicycle, and it's not punching someone in the nose. It's using a piece of intellectual property without permission and, arguably, the penalties for doing so are a lot more severe than for the other things we just mentioned.

And here's where it gets even dicier:

If someone accuses you of stealing their bicycle, they have to prove you did it. With intellectual property, if you are using, say, a photo, and someone can demonstrate they have the copyright on that photo, they do not have to prove that you don't have permission -- you have to prove that YOU do. This is an important concept, and we'll talk about it in greater detail later on in this document. But for now, just bear this in mind: If you steal an image, you have just infringed someone's lawful copyright and there are about 200 years' worth of laws in place to provide the copyright holder with remedies that you are definitely not going to like.

What are the penalties if you steal stock photos?

Copyright laws provide for statutory penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement. No, that comma is not in the wrong place. It's not $150; and it's not $1,500: It's one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. In case you think that is an arbitrary number, bear in mind that it has recently been raised from $100,000 per infringement in order to give the provision even more teeth than it already had.

So, let's say you go to a photo agency website, download one of the low resolution stock photos they provide for "trying out" purposes, and then use it on your website without first purchasing a license to do so for, say, $49.

In order to save $49, you have just opened yourself up to a potential liability of $150,000. And when the agency finds you (and they will), the legal "cause of action" that lands on your desk (it looks a lot like a subpoena) will not be seeking the $29 you should have paid: It will be seeking $150,000 for infringement of the lawful copyright on the stock photo.

What the Digital Millennium Copyright Act means to you


Governmental legislators have a long history of understanding the importance of encouraging people to be creative by giving them the right to control -- and benefit from -- the products of that creativity. The advent of the Internet and the easy digital transportation of images that accompanies it has prompted lawmakers to work hard on the copyright laws to afford creators the protection they need. One of the results of this is the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" that attempts to apply these fundamental protection issues to the "New Age".

In other words, lawmakers have given creators the tools they need, in the form of this Act, to prevent thievery by making it extremely difficult for someone with larceny in their heart to sleep well. Just one example of this, as we'll see in a later section, is that the Act makes it a criminal offense to attempt to digitally remove such things as watermarks on stock photos which are placed there to protect copyright. Yes, removing watermarks can be easily done, but doing so is as "against the law" as would be breaking into someone's house to steal their jewelry. If the potential for massive financial loss doesn't deter you, how does jail sound?

Thus, even beyond the specific provisions of the Act, you should take note of the underlying spirit of the Act and the "mind set" of the lawmakers that it bespeaks: They consider intellectual property theft a very serious offense and they will do what's necessary to give creators the ability to protect their copyrights.

Why are the legal penalties so severe?



If copyright infringement resulted in nothing but a slap on the wrist, there are unfortunately those who would say to themselves, "If I get caught, I'll just pay the fine and consider it a cost of doing business." Lawmakers in the US have figured that $150,000.00 is a figure large enough to discourage that attitude in most sane people.

it's not $1,500: It's one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. In case you think that is an arbitrary number, bear in mind that it has recently been raised from $100,000 per infringement in order to give the provision even more teeth than it already had.

So, let's say you go to a photo agency website, download one of the low resolution stock photos they provide for "trying out" purposes, and then use it on your website without first purchasing a license to do so for, say, $49.

In order to save $49, you have just opened yourself up to a potential liability of $150,000. And when the agency finds you (and they will), the legal "cause of action" that lands on your desk (it looks a lot like a subpoena) will not be seeking the $29 you should have paid: It will be seeking $150,000 for infringement of the lawful copyright on the stock photo.

What the Digital Millennium Copyright Act means to you


Governmental legislators have a long history of understanding the importance of encouraging people to be creative by giving them the right to control -- and benefit from -- the products of that creativity. The advent of the Internet and the easy digital transportation of images that accompanies it has prompted lawmakers to work hard on the copyright laws to afford creators the protection they need. One of the results of this is the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" that attempts to apply these fundamental protection issues to the "New Age".

In other words, lawmakers have given creators the tools they need, in the form of this Act, to prevent thievery by making it extremely difficult for someone with larceny in their heart to sleep well. Just one example of this, as we'll see in a later section, is that the Act makes it a criminal offense to attempt to digitally remove such things as watermarks on stock photos which are placed there to protect copyright. Yes, removing watermarks can be easily done, but doing so is as "against the law" as would be breaking into someone's house to steal their jewelry. If the potential for massive financial loss doesn't deter you, how does jail sound?

Thus, even beyond the specific provisions of the Act, you should take note of the underlying spirit of the Act and the "mind set" of the lawmakers that it bespeaks: They consider intellectual property theft a very serious offense and they will do what's necessary to give creators the ability to protect their copyrights.

Why are the legal penalties so severe?



If copyright infringement resulted in nothing but a slap on the wrist, there are unfortunately those who would say to themselves, "If I get caught, I'll just pay the fine and consider it a cost of doing business." Lawmakers in the US have figured that $150,000.00 is a figure large enough to discourage that attitude in most sane people.

If you steal photos, what are the chances you'll be caught?

Every day that goes by, those chances become greater.

Why?

Well, just as the new "digital" way of handling images is making it easier to steal photos, so, too, it is making it easier to find people who steal, especially if you are using photos on your website that you haven't paid for.

Images are being digitally encrypted in ways that you cannot detect. Then "spiders" are sent out to look for them, searching every corner of the Internet.

And guess what? That digital fingerprint stays with the image even if you only use part of it or change it substantially. If you're thinking, well, I'll just change this a bit, and alter this color and pretty soon no one will know where this image came from... think again.

If you are downloading photos, removing the watermarks, and then using them in printed pieces or even multi-media presentations, there are entities "along the way" who are empowered to check to see if you have purchased a legal license to use the images. People such as printers: More and more printers will not print your job unless you can provide them with proof that you have purchased the rights to use all the images in the project you have given them. No proof? You'd be surprised how many times we get calls from printers alerting us to projects they've been given where proper licenses for the images have not been secured.

Service bureaus replicating your multi-media presentations will check.

And bear something else in mind: If you read the previous section on penalties, you know that when a photo agency or photographer discovers an "infringement", the "recovery" (the amount of money they can extract from you) is very substantial. That means that they can hire a lot of people to do nothing but look for these infringements: They only have to find a few to pay for the effort. (This, indeed, is part of the intention of the law and the large penalties it provides for: To make it financially feasible for creators to spend the time and money to police the usage of their work.)

Put another way: If you are stealing images, you are on the wrong end of a whole system that is geared to prevent you from doing so.

Why do photographers and agencies take this so seriously?

Two reasons, one obvious, one less so:

The Obvious Reason: We make our living selling the rights to use our photos. It is our "stock and trade". If people use our images without paying for them, we go out of business.

The Less Obvious Reason: As mentioned right at the top of this document, the vast majority of our customers are great. They pay a fair price to use our images, respect the copyright on them, and act as creative professionals themselves. If they are competing against someone who is stealing our stock photos, it puts them at a disadvantage. Therefore, stealing is not only unfair to us, it is unfair to our good customers who pay us, and we have a desire and an obligation to protect them.


Which is exactly what we, and all other agencies are doing, with the support and help of governments throughout the world.

Are you going to get caught? Maybe you're faster, smarter and more clever than everybody else and you won't get caught. Maybe. But if you are caught, please refer to the previous section on penalties.

Well, just as the new "digital" way of handling images is making it easier to steal photos, so, too, it is making it easier to find people who steal, especially if you are using photos on your website that you haven't paid for.

Images are being digitally encrypted in ways that you cannot detect. Then "spiders" are sent out to look for them, searching every corner of the Internet.

And guess what? That digital fingerprint stays with the image even if you only use part of it or change it substantially. If you're thinking, well, I'll just change this a bit, and alter this color and pretty soon no one will know where this image came from... think again.

If you are downloading photos, removing the watermarks, and then using them in printed pieces or even multi-media presentations, there are entities "along the way" who are empowered to check to see if you have purchased a legal license to use the images. People such as printers: More and more printers will not print your job unless you can provide them with proof that you have purchased the rights to use all the images in the project you have given them. No proof? You'd be surprised how many times we get calls from printers alerting us to projects they've been given where proper licenses for the images have not been secured.

Service bureaus replicating your multi-media presentations will check.

And bear something else in mind: If you read the previous section on penalties, you know that when a photo agency or photographer discovers an "infringement", the "recovery" (the amount of money they can extract from you) is very substantial. That means that they can hire a lot of people to do nothing but look for these infringements: They only have to find a few to pay for the effort. (This, indeed, is part of the intention of the law and the large penalties it provides for: To make it financially feasible for creators to spend the time and money to police the usage of their work.)

Put another way: If you are stealing images, you are on the wrong end of a whole system that is geared to prevent you from doing so.

Why do photographers and agencies take this so seriously?

Two reasons, one obvious, one less so:

The Obvious Reason: We make our living selling the rights to use our photos. It is our "stock and trade". If people use our images without paying for them, we go out of business.

The Less Obvious Reason: As mentioned right at the top of this document, the vast majority of our customers are great. They pay a fair price to use our images, respect the copyright on them, and act as creative professionals themselves. If they are competing against someone who is stealing our stock photos, it puts them at a disadvantage. Therefore, stealing is not only unfair to us, it is unfair to our good customers who pay us, and we have a desire and an obligation to protect them.


Which is exactly what we, and all other agencies are doing, with the support and help of governments throughout the world.

Are you going to get caught? Maybe you're faster, smarter and more clever than everybody else and you won't get caught. Maybe. But if you are caught, please refer to the previous section on penalties.

The Four Biggest Mistakes in Thinking You Can Make...
Incredibly painful
Mistake #1

Thinking that the worst thing that can happen to you if you "steal" an image is that you can be forced to pay what you would have had to pay anyway...



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------


Think again. Copyright laws provide for statutory penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement. "Borrow" a picture that you should have paid $49 for? Who's gonna know, right? Somebody catches you, you pony up the $49 bucks, right? Nope. You have infringed a legal copyright, and THAT's what they're going to come after you for: $150,000.

Incredibly painful
Mistake #2

Thinking, hey, let THEM prove I DIDN'T pay for the picture.



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------


Intellectual Property issues are different from a lot of things in the rest of the world. ("Intellectual Property" is how the law describes things like books, poems, symphonies and...photos.) In the rest of the world, if somebody thinks you stole something, they have to prove you did. In the world of copyright infringement, you have to prove that you DIDN'T. Yep.

Let's say, for example, that someone sees one of their pictures used on your website. They can prove that it is, indeed, their picture. They own the copyright on it. They can make a demand that you prove that you have legally acquired the right to use the picture. If you can't prove it (usually in the form of a paid invoice) you're in big trouble. Very big. (See "Incredibly painful mistake #1", above.)

Incredibly painful
Mistake #3

Thinking to yourself, "Hey, I'll just use Photoshop to remove all these pesky little copyright identifiers on this picture. Who's gonna know?"



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------

"Watermarking" involves digitally embedding into an image a symbol that identifies the copyright holder.



The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 makes it a criminal offense to remove watermarks meant to protect copyright. Many people don't realize that under U.S. copyright law, it is specifically illegal to remove a watermark from a photo. Not only is the act of removal prohibited, the courts assume that the very attempt indicates a willful intent to violate somebody's copyright. And that's something the courts come down really hard on. [See "Incredibly Painful Mistakes" numbers 1 & 2, above.]

Incredibly painful
Mistake #4

Thinking, hey, I'm too "small potatoes" for anyone to care.



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------



To the contrary. The Internal Revenue Service figured this out a long time ago, which is why they focus on the small cheaters, not the big ones: There are a lot more "small fry" than there are "big cheeses", and the message you send when you attend to the smaller entities is a powerful word-of-mouth engine. If you're doing a little out-of-the-way website or a local-distribution brochure and thinking you'll just appropriate a few images because, after all, who's going to care... guess what? You are smack in the bull's-eye, exactly the "profile" that is being targeted.

Thinking that the worst thing that can happen to you if you "steal" an image is that you can be forced to pay what you would have had to pay anyway...



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------


Think again. Copyright laws provide for statutory penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement. "Borrow" a picture that you should have paid $49 for? Who's gonna know, right? Somebody catches you, you pony up the $49 bucks, right? Nope. You have infringed a legal copyright, and THAT's what they're going to come after you for: $150,000.

Incredibly painful
Mistake #2

Thinking, hey, let THEM prove I DIDN'T pay for the picture.



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------


Intellectual Property issues are different from a lot of things in the rest of the world. ("Intellectual Property" is how the law describes things like books, poems, symphonies and...photos.) In the rest of the world, if somebody thinks you stole something, they have to prove you did. In the world of copyright infringement, you have to prove that you DIDN'T. Yep.

Let's say, for example, that someone sees one of their pictures used on your website. They can prove that it is, indeed, their picture. They own the copyright on it. They can make a demand that you prove that you have legally acquired the right to use the picture. If you can't prove it (usually in the form of a paid invoice) you're in big trouble. Very big. (See "Incredibly painful mistake #1", above.)

Incredibly painful
Mistake #3

Thinking to yourself, "Hey, I'll just use Photoshop to remove all these pesky little copyright identifiers on this picture. Who's gonna know?"



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------

"Watermarking" involves digitally embedding into an image a symbol that identifies the copyright holder.



The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 makes it a criminal offense to remove watermarks meant to protect copyright. Many people don't realize that under U.S. copyright law, it is specifically illegal to remove a watermark from a photo. Not only is the act of removal prohibited, the courts assume that the very attempt indicates a willful intent to violate somebody's copyright. And that's something the courts come down really hard on. [See "Incredibly Painful Mistakes" numbers 1 & 2, above.]

Incredibly painful
Mistake #4

Thinking, hey, I'm too "small potatoes" for anyone to care.



------------------------------ ... ------------------------------



To the contrary. The Internal Revenue Service figured this out a long time ago, which is why they focus on the small cheaters, not the big ones: There are a lot more "small fry" than there are "big cheeses", and the message you send when you attend to the smaller entities is a powerful word-of-mouth engine. If you're doing a little out-of-the-way website or a local-distribution brochure and thinking you'll just appropriate a few images because, after all, who's going to care... guess what? You are smack in the bull's-eye, exactly the "profile" that is being targeted.

If You've Already Stolen Images ...

Our advice?

You've got two choices, neither of them particularly fun, but both of them are a whole lot better than continuing to infringe someone's lawful copyright and leaving yourself open for a truly catastrophic lawsuit:

Stop using the images. Right now. If you have them on your website, take them down. Now. If you've used them in an ad, stop running the ad. If you've used them in a brochure, stop distributing the brochure.

Will that "cure" the infringement?

No. If you shoplift a pair of gloves from a store and stop using them, you've still shoplifted. If you've already used images you didn't pay for, but you stop using them, you've still used them in the past, without permission and without payment. That's infringement of copyright, already done, and you're not going to get that toothpaste back in the tube.

But it's a start.

Now go do what's necessary to purchase the rights to the images from whomever you got them in the first place, and make sure you purchase a license that covers whatever use you were making of them.

If they are royalty-free images, there are set, fixed prices. Purchase the images. Fast.

If they are rights managed images, you have a little bigger problem, but not insurmountable. You'll need to phone the agency and negotiate a fee that covers the way you want to use the images.

Will that cure the infringement?

No. You've already broken the law by using them in the first place, and the fact is that if the owner of the copyright finds out about it, even if you purchase a license later, you have still infringed their copyright previously, before you did the right thing and purchased the license, and they can come after you for it.

Why, then, should you potentially "alert" the copyright owner to the prior infringement by getting in touch with them now to purchase the rights?

Two reasons:

Firstly, it's the lesser of evils. If you don't do what you can to mitigate the situation, and if you do get caught, the recovery the agency seeks will be merciless.

Secondly, it's the right thing to do. And this is one of those happy instances where the right thing is also the practical thing. Why? Because agencies want to encourage people to do the right thing, not hammer them for it.

Look, we're not going to give you any guarantees on the behavior of other agencies, and don't tell anyone we told you this, but the fact is that IF you have stolen images in the past, but IF you do the right thing now and purchase a license for them, you've got a very good chance of "skating" on it. If an agency is going to "get tough" and spend a lot of time and energy proving a point (and recovering a bunch of money) they are much more likely to focus on the people who don't do the "right thing" than those who do, even if it's a little belatedly.

But again, we can't give you any guarantees, and please remember, we're not the ones who stole the images: you are. We're just trying to give you some avenues to redemption here...

Of course, you do have a third option, and that is simply to continue to use the pictures, infringe someone's lawful copyright, and hope for the best. Before doing so, we recommend re-reading two sections of this document:

Are you going to get caught?

copyright and leaving yourself open for a truly catastrophic lawsuit:

Stop using the images. Right now. If you have them on your website, take them down. Now. If you've used them in an ad, stop running the ad. If you've used them in a brochure, stop distributing the brochure.

Will that "cure" the infringement?

No. If you shoplift a pair of gloves from a store and stop using them, you've still shoplifted. If you've already used images you didn't pay for, but you stop using them, you've still used them in the past, without permission and without payment. That's infringement of copyright, already done, and you're not going to get that toothpaste back in the tube.

But it's a start.

Now go do what's necessary to purchase the rights to the images from whomever you got them in the first place, and make sure you purchase a license that covers whatever use you were making of them.

If they are royalty-free images, there are set, fixed prices. Purchase the images. Fast.

If they are rights managed images, you have a little bigger problem, but not insurmountable. You'll need to phone the agency and negotiate a fee that covers the way you want to use the images.

Will that cure the infringement?

No. You've already broken the law by using them in the first place, and the fact is that if the owner of the copyright finds out about it, even if you purchase a license later, you have still infringed their copyright previously, before you did the right thing and purchased the license, and they can come after you for it.

Why, then, should you potentially "alert" the copyright owner to the prior infringement by getting in touch with them now to purchase the rights?

Two reasons:

Firstly, it's the lesser of evils. If you don't do what you can to mitigate the situation, and if you do get caught, the recovery the agency seeks will be merciless.

Secondly, it's the right thing to do. And this is one of those happy instances where the right thing is also the practical thing. Why? Because agencies want to encourage people to do the right thing, not hammer them for it.

Look, we're not going to give you any guarantees on the behavior of other agencies, and don't tell anyone we told you this, but the fact is that IF you have stolen images in the past, but IF you do the right thing now and purchase a license for them, you've got a very good chance of "skating" on it. If an agency is going to "get tough" and spend a lot of time and energy proving a point (and recovering a bunch of money) they are much more likely to focus on the people who don't do the "right thing" than those who do, even if it's a little belatedly.

But again, we can't give you any guarantees, and please remember, we're not the ones who stole the images: you are. We're just trying to give you some avenues to redemption here...

Of course, you do have a third option, and that is simply to continue to use the pictures, infringe someone's lawful copyright, and hope for the best. Before doing so, we recommend re-reading two sections of this document:

Are you going to get caught?

Conclusion
Please don't hate us,
We're just the messenger...



We didn't particularly enjoy writing this document and we suspect you didn't particularly enjoy reading it -- which is just one of the reasons we're grateful that you did.

The topic of image theft is not a pleasant one, and, as we said at the beginning, our overwhelming experience is that our customers are as honest as can be and an absolute pleasure to do business with.

And the irony of image theft is that we do everything we can to make it as easy as possible for you to navigate our site, find images and try them in your layouts. To make it harder for those with larceny in their hearts we'd have to make it more difficult for the customers we trust, and we're not willing to do that.

So please take the information in this document in the spirit it is given: A "heads up" for those who aren't aware of these issues or the dangers they face if they use images without permission, and a big, fat "Thank You" to the tens of thousands of customers who use our products well, creatively, and honestly.


Thank you!

We didn't particularly enjoy writing this document and we suspect you didn't particularly enjoy reading it -- which is just one of the reasons we're grateful that you did.

The topic of image theft is not a pleasant one, and, as we said at the beginning, our overwhelming experience is that our customers are as honest as can be and an absolute pleasure to do business with.

And the irony of image theft is that we do everything we can to make it as easy as possible for you to navigate our site, find images and try them in your layouts. To make it harder for those with larceny in their hearts we'd have to make it more difficult for the customers we trust, and we're not willing to do that.

So please take the information in this document in the spirit it is given: A "heads up" for those who aren't aware of these issues or the dangers they face if they use images without permission, and a big, fat "Thank You" to the tens of thousands of customers who use our products well, creatively, and honestly.


Thank you!