4 ms·

Alright. How about: "Then she received a letter from a lawyer in Florida,telling her that a) one image web site is not licensed; b) If she doesn't fix it, they

Alright. How about: "Then she received a letter from a lawyer in Florida,telling her that a) one image web site is not licensed; b) If she doesn't fix it, they'll file a law suit; and c) She needs to pay the lawyers $4,000 to "cover the unauthorised use of the single image without license"." That happens all the time. Enough that it's fairly well known now. I think few would just lift an image off another site these days. If this is required to get sites to give a shit about accessibility once again, great! A few headline cases of huge, crippling fines, and few would just put out a site without accessibility, or give a tender to developers without a contract section covering it. So the only remaining issues are whether $4k is a reasonable sum or just a lawyer trying it on, and whether she can sue OpenCart for providing a non-accessible platform.

Mirioron 7y ago
An unlicensed image is something you consciously include - every image you don't explicitly have the license for is considered unlicensed. You can then get a guarantee in writing when you buy a license for an image. Nothing like that exists for accessibility. There is no 30 second test that will guarantee you that you are not going to get sued over accessibility problems on your website. Now imagine if that even has the possibility of bankrupting you. Would you even consider the risk of making a website? Now it's not just the people with disability that can't use the website - nobody can, because the website doesn't exist.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  This has always applied in the UK since the disability act. The chain of liability is similar, the requirement for clause in supplier contract is similar. Yet the third-party (OpenCart) appears to be where liability rests. So she needs to counter sue her supplier. That's just how it works. So I see no difference at all for an aware store owner who wants a website.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    Seems like an undue burden to place on a small business owner. Having to both defend in one lawsuit and sue another party when they likely aren't knowledgeable or willing to take the risk of either.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      shrug That's the legal system. I didn't make it. A clause in supplier contract guaranteeing whatever - accessibility or all images being licensed covers you.
      - im3w1l 7y ago
        Cicrcling back to > If this is required to get sites to give a shit about accessibility once again, great! Given how enforcement works, I can't share your enthusiasm, and in fact I will oppose accessibility regulation.
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        Well, for the sake of people who need accessibility I hope you won't be successful with that.
        im3w1l 7y ago
        Walk the path you propose and you will get a world where chains displace all other restaurants, where police swoop in on kids' lemonade stands. Why? When you can make sensible regulations that target the service providers like shopify, or whatever restaurants use instead and just escape the dilemma?

Mirioron 7y ago

An unlicensed image is something you consciously include - every image you don't explicitly have the license for is considered unlicensed. You can then get a guarantee in writing when you buy a license for an image. Nothing like that exists for accessibility. There is no 30 second test that will guarantee you that you are not going to get sued over accessibility problems on your website. Now imagine if that even has the possibility of bankrupting you. Would you even consider the risk of making a website? Now it's not just the people with disability that can't use the website - nobody can, because the website doesn't exist.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
This has always applied in the UK since the disability act. The chain of liability is similar, the requirement for clause in supplier contract is similar. Yet the third-party (OpenCart) appears to be where liability rests. So she needs to counter sue her supplier. That's just how it works. So I see no difference at all for an aware store owner who wants a website.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Seems like an undue burden to place on a small business owner. Having to both defend in one lawsuit and sue another party when they likely aren't knowledgeable or willing to take the risk of either.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    shrug That's the legal system. I didn't make it. A clause in supplier contract guaranteeing whatever - accessibility or all images being licensed covers you.
    - im3w1l 7y ago
      Cicrcling back to > If this is required to get sites to give a shit about accessibility once again, great! Given how enforcement works, I can't share your enthusiasm, and in fact I will oppose accessibility regulation.
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        Well, for the sake of people who need accessibility I hope you won't be successful with that.
        im3w1l 7y ago
        Walk the path you propose and you will get a world where chains displace all other restaurants, where police swoop in on kids' lemonade stands. Why? When you can make sensible regulations that target the service providers like shopify, or whatever restaurants use instead and just escape the dilemma?