KodakOne - Image Copyright - Post Licensing

KodakOne - Image Copyright - Post Licensing

I today received an official looking email from KodakOne, demanding 300 euros within 7 days for use of an obscure, low resolution image that has been included on a lesser used page of my web site, 92 views in one year.

I am looking in to whether this legal or not in the mean time if you have any relevant experience please leave a comment below.

I have made the following enquiries, either by web search or phone.  It quickly became clear that I was entirely in the wrong, but I continued my investigations to try and find out if the fee I was paying was fair.

Ivestigations

Citizens Advice 

"A copyright owner or the exclusive licensee has the right to pursue you for compensation for copyright infringements. The letter should come either from them or from a solicitor acting on their behalf. You should check carefully that the letter is genuine"

The Intellectual Property Office 

Summary of  telephone conversation was that licensee has the right to pursue for compensation, but they could advise on how much compensation was appropriate.

Citizens Advice

Advised that it is of course legal to pursue for breach of copyright, and that the amount charged is entirely up to the copyright holder.

The 300 Euros

In this case having spoken to the photographer in question he assures me that he receives 60% of the fees charged with KodakOne taking the remaining 40%.

So this leaves the photographer taking £180 for the photograph (of a tractor). I can hire a commercial photographer in London to visit a site and take 20 photos for £100.

Legal Stuff

The Digital Economy Act 2010 has a maximum fime level of £50,000. So that is scary.

Mike Weatherley MP, IP adviser to the Prime Minister, who wrote recently: "There is currently a disparity in sentencing between online and offline crime that needs to be harmonised. This sends out all the wrong messages. Until this is changed, online crime will be seen as less significant than traditional theft."

The above linked guide states:




Although searches for official sentencing guidelines relating to copyright cases suggest that these are lacking in detail, it appears in practice that:

• If the website is organised and making a significant amount of money (as was the case with SurfTheChannel and Flashsportstreams.com), it is possible to use anti-fraud legislation, and substantial (two+ years prison sentences) may result
• When the operation is more amateur or “hobbyist” in nature, but still earns revenue, a guilty verdict and suspended sentence appears to be the norm (Films.com, Freelivefooty.com). Juries appear reluctant to convict on fraud charges in these cases
• The less obviously business-orientated the website is, the harder prosecution becomes (as with Filesoup). No cases have so far been successful
• Case law has also established that end users are not breaking the law by streaming illicit content via the web, as long as no copy is made (PRCA v NLA)

So it could be that if you are being pursued for copyright infringement on a site that does not make any money. i.e. a blog without advertising, then you would likely avoid prosecution. But of course you would have to pay solicitors to prove this, which would likley cost more than 300 euros.

What I did Get

I asked for 60 day payment terms (rather than 7) and this was accepted. So at least I have longer to pay.

Conclusions

Copyright Law is not something to messed with. Growing up through the era of Napster, and with most contemporary references to copyright being fairly light hearted it is easy to forget that it can bite you in the @$$.