3 ms·
100% this. I run a decent sized publisher, and have to make sure images are licensed properly, and even with proper training, we still get the robo-lawyers sha
by celestialcheese 4y ago
100% this. I run a decent sized publisher, and have to make sure images are licensed properly, and even with proper training, we still get the robo-lawyers shakedowns at least once a quarter. It's between $400-$1000 per "settlement", so still less than Getty licensing costs. Cost of doing business :shrug:
- eli 4y agoI can't prove it, but my theory for one of the images I got bitten for is that either the photographer or a coconspirator posted the photo to WikiCommons as CC licensed, then later the photographer sends a takedown saying it was posted by an imposter and isn't authorized. It's deleted from Wiki but then they get to hunt down everyone who copied that image and send them a bill of $1000. Quite a scam.
- WorldMaker 4y agoThere was an article that trended a few months back too about CC "Attribution trolls". (I can't find it in a quick search, sorry, but I can paraphrase.) There's a legal "bug" in the Attribution clauses of early CC licenses that basically says that the copyright owner gets to dictate how the Attribution must read down to detailed specifics in wording and formatting. They post to WikiCommons as CC licensed under specific old versions of CC and rely on the fact that most people don't copy and paste the attribution strings verbatim to troll for licensing fees. (So, watch out for CC licenses older than 4.0 for that.)