Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Twitter Your Rights Online

Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers On Twitter 164

Posted by kdawson
from the better-than-paying-lawyers dept.
snitty writes "Wil Shipley, developer of Delicious Library, found some applications on the iTunes App Store that were using without permission some images from his popular desktop application. He outed them on Twitter. The team at Technically Legal broke down the story and the take-home messages for using other people's images."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Developer Exposes Copyright Infringers On Twitter

Comments Filter:
  • Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Image off of his website. [delicious-monster.com]

    Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by Itninja (937614) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @03:44PM (#29430185) Homepage
      When the President does it, it's not illegal.
    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @03:57PM (#29430303) Homepage Journal

      Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?

      More to the point: did he try to pass them off as his own? No.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Macbook, Starcraft, Peggle... Are those fair use applications?

        More to the point: did he try to pass them off as his own? No.

        This centers around one party using another party's compyrighted property without permission.

        His image looks like a photoshopped version of a stock, copyrighted Apple image:

        Apple Macbook Pro [wordpress.com]

        I'm using the lighting on the top left corner and the artifacts around the camera. I wonder if he asked for permission from Apple before manipulating that image of theirs.

        It's bad if someone uses his wood grain background without permission (to make money, no less). But when he uses someone elses' copyrighted material (t

        • by B'Trey (111263)

          Additionally, he says: "And at best I'd maybe get an injunction, not damages. And, really, they're not making enough money for me to regain my losses."

          Uh, what losses? Granted, if he owns the copyright to the image, it's illegal to use them without his permission. But in what way did the use of those images actually cause him any losses? How was he actually harmed? I have no issue with him asking, or even demanding, that they stop using his artwork. But to claim "losses" is downright silly.

          • by Amorya (741253)
            I think he means the losses he'd make taking it to court i.e. hiring lawyers etc.
        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          His photoshop job of the original MacBook picture is certainly an original composition, even though he uses several copyrighted photos, he adds enough to it that it is almost certainly legal.

          Now, copying his photo for your own, commercial use in no way adds to the composition, or changes the original, and it's just plain copyright infringement.

          We have rules for the way these things work, and though they tend to be judgement calls we have pretty well worked things out in these cases. Borderline cases are al

      • by mdwh2 (535323)

        But the issue was copyright law - so no, that's not more to the point. (Also I'm not sure I'd agree that the people here were passing it off as their own - they weren't rehosting them as stock images, for example.)

    • The Image (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FornaxChemica (968594) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @03:59PM (#29430331) Homepage Journal
      The copyrighted image is actually the "woodgrain background", quoting Technically Legal. Is this a joke? The whole story is about a background texture being stolen? Some actual artists out there who've been ripped off must be feel pretty distressed right now.
      • Re:The Image (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WarwickRyan (780794) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:09PM (#29430413)

        Bingo.

        Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

        Seems to me like the real reason for him being angry is that the iPhone application he's complaining about looks to be basically an iPhone version of his desktop application. Someone beat him to it on the iPhone and he's mad..

        • Re:The Image (Score:5, Interesting)

          by garcia (6573) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:18PM (#29430523) Homepage

          Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

          Because sometimes even when you do both of those things [lazylightning.org], you get nowhere fast. Twitter is something that a lot of people utilize and it's a good way to go about expressing your frustration and getting the word out to a lot of people (including the offender) quickly.

          • Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

            Because sometimes even when you do both of those things [lazylightning.org], you get nowhere fast.

            Who cares about "sometimes", there's due process. Outing someone for infringing your copyright is akin to vigilante justice. While that works in comic books, in real life you just get violations of the law to enforce the law.

            If it does turn out it's similar but not his texture then he's opened himself up for law suits for defamation.

            • Re:The Image (Score:5, Informative)

              by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @05:42PM (#29431965)

              Outing someone for infringing your copyright is akin to vigilante justice.

              WTF? No it's not, not at all.

              Vigilante justice would be breaking into his house and stealing stuff worth what you consider to be the value of a license to use your copyrighted work.

              Beating him up would also be vigilante justice.

              Do you even know what "vigilante" means? Holy cow man. Yelling "Stop! Thief!" is not vigilantism, and neither is calling someone who steals your picture a copyright infringer.

              If it does turn out it's similar but not his texture then he's opened himself up for law suits for defamation.

              Not really, do you understand what defamation is? It's damaging one's reputation, character, or good name by slander or libel.

              Now, slander is a false statement injurious to a person's reputation. Libel is essentially the same with print.

              All that to say, if the person saying/writing it believes it to be the truth, then it is not slander or libel and therefor not defamation. Slander and Libel, and therefore defamation, are notoriously difficult to prove. Else we would not have the political system we have.

              • So you're saying that, because the system designed to protect him is broken and slow, it's okay for him to make inflammatory, potentially false, public statements about other people, in his own interest, because the system design to protect them is also broken and slow?

                Just as a side-note, you're only half-right about the "belief of truth" clause. The second half of that is that there can also not be a "reckless disregard for whether the statement is true or false." And that's only as right as the state
                • by garcia (6573)

                  Depending on whether he has more proof than, "Hey! That super-generic background texture looks just like a really super-generic background texture I derived from existing work myself!" they might have a case.

                  I think we were talking more in general than you are here. If someone is 100% confident in the fact that they are being wronged, I just don't see what the problem is with taking the information public.

              • ll that to say, if the person saying/writing it believes it to be the truth, then it is not slander or libel and therefor not defamation. Slander and Libel, and therefore defamation, are notoriously difficult to prove. Else we would not have the political system we have.

                I'd just like to point out that while that might be true in your country, it's not the same everywhere. In the UK you have to be able to stand up and prove what you say (the burden of proof is on the statement issuer).

              • by sjames (1099)

                Honestly, we'd all be a lot better off if name and shame replaced the courts as the next step up from asking in private. The constant stream of lawsuits is a drain on the economy and the "you can be sued by anyone at any time for anything" is a big chilling effect on anything economically productive.

                It also has the benefit that if the person who "names and shames" has no valid complaint the world shrugs and the otherwise defendant isn't out a big pile of time and money. Another benefit is that people with a

          • by pjt33 (739471)

            Is it normal behaviour when nicking someone's images to also start following them on Twitter?

        • So I'm going to call them thieves publicly and embarrass them. Skip the lawyers, let's go back to shaming people!

          A first step might have been to contact them, let them know that they were infringing, and see what the response was. Especially considering

          Stolen images update: Tom from Netwalk apologized, said he didn't know it was my texture, promised a resubmitted "MyMovies" update tonight!

          Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.

          • > Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.

            Isn't this exactly an example of the stick working better than the carrot? What he actually used was a stick, and it worked. You're hypothesizing that he could have used a carrot, but it would not have worked any better than immediate success.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by AmigaHeretic (991368)
          >>Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

          The guy (who's texture was "stolen") sells a product that lets you scan a UPC of a CD, DVD, etc and then "downloads" a digital image of the cover.

          So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online? (His product is $40)
          • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

            He's not selling anybody's images, the photos are downloaded after the fact from a presumably public source.

            It's the program that he is selling.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anubis IV (1279820)

            So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online? (His product is $40)

            Yes. He gets the images from Amazon, and he's been in talks with them for some time on the subject, just to make sure that he accesses and uses the images and data in a legal manner. But hey, accusing him without looking into the situation is all the rage these days, so I can understand where you're coming from.

            • by tehcyder (746570)

              So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online? (His product is $40)

              Yes.

              Best. Answer. Ever.

          • So did this guy contact EVERY company and artist about offering to sell the cover images online?

            He gets the covers from Amazon. And yes, he contacted Amazon and got permission to use the covers the way he uses them.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by stickystyle (799509)

          Seems to me like the real reason for him being angry is that the iPhone application he's complaining about looks to be basically an iPhone version of his desktop application. Someone beat him to it on the iPhone and he's mad..

          Actually, he did have an iPhone version of his app but Amazon.com forced him to pull it http://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/2517428863 [twitter.com]

        • by ebingo (533762)

          Not really, he already had an application for the iPhone, but Amazon asked him to remove it:
          http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/delicious-library-for-iphone-runs-afoul-of-amazons-api-terms-p/ [tuaw.com]

        • Re:The Image (Score:4, Interesting)

          by diamondsw (685967) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:43PM (#29430883)
          Except he's been on the iPhone [delicious-monster.com] for a while - until Amazon yanked all mobile licenses to their data.

          This goes back to the whole issue of stealing "look and feel", which they most certainly did. Whether that constitutes legal copyright infringement is beyond me (and I imagine 99% of the commenters on /.).
        • by tsa (15680)

          Why didn't he just email them and ask them either not to use his pictures, or to pay him for them?

          Why didn't he just put the pictures on his website as examples of how NOT to use his texture?

        • by EvilIdler (21087)

          Nobody beat him to the iPhone. Delicious Library has its own iPhone app which has been out for a while. You might not know this, being an obvious non-Mac user, but Delicious Library is actually fairly big on that platform.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by coaxial (28297)

        True, it is the texture. But let's be honest here. It's not just the texture. It's the whole look of the application. Delicious Library has a VERY distinctive look. Books and DVD boxes sitting on wooden shelves. It's unmistakable, yet these applications completely aped it. More importantly, it is confusingly similar.

        • by russotto (537200)

          True, it is the texture. But let's be honest here. It's not just the texture. It's the whole look of the application.

          Look-n-feel copyright went down in flames in the Apple v. Microsoft case.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by wannabgeek (323414)

          Have you seen this site? http://www.shelfari.com/ [shelfari.com]
          The look is very similar. I wonder who took from whom?

      • by KingSkippus (799657) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:40PM (#29430837) Homepage Journal

        It sure sounds like a joke, doesn't it? I mean, come on, he's all bent out of shape over a woodgrain texture? It's not like they took his logo or something distinctive about his application. It sounds pretty petty to me.

        I hate to say it, Mr. Shipley, but this is not the kind of trivial copyright stuff that we're constantly railing against. From TFA:

        If the owner of the image has registered that copyright, it can open you up to RIAA v. The People sized damages: thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per infringement.

        Congratulations Mr. Shipley, you're now being compared to organizations like the RIAA. Were you Right(TM) (as in, technically correct in that your copyright was violated)? Sure, I'll concede that, and if they knew that the texture came from you, they should have checked if it was okay before using it. But where you right (as in, responding in an ethically appropriate way)? Absolutely not. Again, from TFA:

        So I'm going to call them thieves publicly and embarrass them. Skip the lawyers, let's go back to shaming people!

        Mr. Shipley, it strikes me that you decided to publicly call someone a thief and unilaterally decided to shame them without really knowing the circumstances of the situation. Did they simply decide that they didn't want to pay for a texture, and maliciously rip yours off? Maybe. But I find it just as likely that they may have simply assumed that it was a public domain texture.

        Or just maybe, being a small outfit or independent developer (which I can certainly empathize with), they got it from a third party who represented that it was either public domain or their texture. I know that for community projects I'm involved with, being as artistic as a two-by-four, when I need a resource like that, I usually post a message somewhere saying something like, "Hey, does anyone have an icon/texture/whatever that I can use?" If someone sends me one, I usually do the due diligence of asking them if I have the rights to use it (e.g. if it's public domain or, if they created it, if they are willingly giving me the rights to use it), but it's not like I hire a lawyer to do a detailed search of everything that's ever been copyrighted to verify it. I simply don't have the time or money to do so.

        So according to TFA, "there are really two important take-away messages from this story." Actually there is at least one more. Some people can really be stupid and petty about such things, making mountains out of molehills, and unfortunately, the legal system today favors those people. Oh, and maybe another is that it's getting harder and harder to be a small, independent developer these days because of idiocy like this. Every time you turn around and no matter what you do, there are people out there who want to squash you like a bug, people ranging from other small developers to giant corporations. Everything from "Hey, you used a button, and we use a button, so we're suing you!" to "You thief, you stole my generic-looking woodgrain texture, waaah!"

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Did they simply decide that they didn't want to pay for a texture, and maliciously rip yours off? Maybe. But I find it just as likely that they may have simply assumed that it was a public domain texture.

          Ignorance of the law is no defense. The picture was clearly marked with the Creative Commons license, which means it is free for non-commercial use. That means these guys were not allowed to use it, and they should have contacted the artist for a license to use it in their application, or found a public domain texture (which likely does not exist), or hired an artist to make one for them (probably more expensive than just licensing).

          This is exactly the situation that copyright is needed for. Some guys st

          • by KingSkippus (799657) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @06:27PM (#29432741) Homepage Journal

            Ignorance of the law is no defense.

            No, but there is such a thing as "reasonable perspective." This guy is so worked up about a frickin' woodgrain texture that he's wanting to sue for losses, and since that would actually cost some money, instead resorts to calling the other developer a thief? I don't care if they did knowingly swipe the texture, that's stupid, plain and simple.

            Do you ever speed on a highway? Technically, you're breaking the law every time you do. How would you like it if a police officer decided that he just plain doesn't like you? He stakes out your house, and every time you go 56 in a 55, he dings you with a ticket. Even more, the judge doesn't like you either, so you don't get stuck with a minor violation, you get charged with reckless driving and have to go to jail.

            It was a frickin' woodgrain texture. The appropriate response would have been to just let it slide. The "I'm irritated" response would have been to e-mail the developer and said, "Hey, that's my texture, please remove it from your app." His actual response, though, is stupid and petty.

            Most artists don't make enough for their work as it is

            Yeah, because I'm sure that's why people were using these applications. Not just because of the woodgrain texture, but because of that specific woodgrain texture. Any other woodgrain texture would have made both the original application and the iPhone app pieces of crap. People are seeing that specific woodgrain texture on the iPhone app and thinking, "The app is just okay, but that texture is so... beautiful...

            Puhleeze. I'm sorry, I thought this was about an application, not a "work of art." Sounds like someone is a little too full of themselves.

            • by tehcyder (746570)

              Puhleeze. I'm sorry, I thought this was about an application, not a "work of art." Sounds like someone is a little too full of themselves.

              Two words: Apple User.

        • It sure sounds like a joke, doesn't it? I mean, come on, he's all bent out of shape over a woodgrain texture? It's not like they took his logo or something distinctive about his application. It sounds pretty petty to me.

          How is it not distinctive? Anyone who has used Delicious Library would look at those screenshots and instantly assume they are looking at a mobile version of DL.

          • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

            He also had his own iPhone app, but got all the images from Amazon (like his desktop app), but Amazon pulled the plug on licensing the pics for the mobile version. So these guys created what amounts to an exact duplicate, down to the very same texture, but I'm assuming they don't get their pictures from Amazon, and if they screwed up on the texture I'm imagining all the other images they use are used illegaly also.

            In other words, this guy gets screwed because he actually follows copyright correctly, and he

    • by Goaway (82658)

      Are those fair use applications?

      Pretty sure the answer to that is "yes, of course".

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      I clicked through one of the links to an "offender" and I saw a
      bunch of James Bond DVD covers that look suspiciously like they
      came off of Amazon (like some of mine have). Or they could have
      just been scans (when Amazon is a bust).

      How do you sort out no less than 3 possible sources for the same
      rather generic image?

    • Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rocketship Underpant (804162) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @08:59PM (#29434495)

      I wish he'd spend less time Twittering and blogging and more time fixing the bugs in Delicious Library 2 that have been there since the beta. There's like, what, one update a year for that application? I don't even bother running it any more.

  • in this case?

    • Copyright didn't really come into play.

      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        Ummm... yes it did?

        This has nothing to do with plagiarism, it's about an iPhone app that uses a texture (a copyrighted image) illegaly. It's licensed under Creative Commons, which does not allow for commercial use, and I believe it also requires attribution. To use his image legally, they needed to get a separate commercial license from the artist. They did not do this, so it is a copyright violation.

        What part of that is NOT about copyright? And where the hell did you get plagiarism from?

      • Well, to be accurate, plagiarism is a facet of copyright. You can't have anti-plagiarism laws without some form of ownership of information.

      • Plagiarism and counterfeiting are the only things I'd ever heard of as copyright infringement before the RIAA started suing people.

        "My Sweet Lord" vs. "He's So Fine," and John Fogerty vs. John Fogerty come to mind. There are many more.

        Getting upset over a background image seems rather petty and insignificant.

  • by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @03:52PM (#29430269) Journal

    Take down notice: BAD

    Software developer: GOOD

    Copyrights: BAD

    Twitter: GOOD

    Lawsuit: BAD

    Caught red-handed: GOOD

    ==Head Assplodes=l

    • Twitter: GOOD

      Did I miss the announcement? I thought we were all still supposed to be shaking our canes and yelling at those damn kids to get off our lawns.

  • by joocemann (1273720) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:03PM (#29430367)

    I know the guy who made the blue frog on the Azureus startup screen.... and it wasn't for Azureus.

    lol.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...someone "stealing" a wood-grain texture. On Twitter moreover, because in Court he might have to explain exactly where the creative work is in a wood-grain texture (in the tree), or what harm he's suffered as a result (none).

    And yet, his own software, that he sells as $40 shareware for the Mac (...why?!), is designed specifically to display copyrighted and/or trademarked cover art of other people's software/music/etc, in its entirety, without the permission of the copyright/trademark holders. Did he ask t

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's not a wood grain texture, it's a faux wood grain texture of the type you might find printed on cheap, tacky veneer. Presumably, shipping a version of this software with a bitmapped texture that approximates real wood would cost more. So how much wood would a woodchuck chuck to simply store metadata in the filesystem? Just think of how many virtual trees (oil in the veneer case) we'd be saving when nobody needs such silly apps.

    • by diamondsw (685967) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:50PM (#29431009)

      Delicious Library is one of the most popular Mac shareware apps, and is exceptionally well-designed. Those wood bookcases are central to its UI look and feel [delicious-monster.com]. And he's already written an iPhone app [delicious-monster.com] - except Amazon decided to yank all mobile licenses [tuaw.com] to their data. Yes, that's right, he pays Amazon for access to their data, so it is legal use and paid for.

      So your entire post is written like a true asshat who has no idea what's going on, and has contributed nothing. But that never stops Slashdot.

      • Sounds to me like the guy has his chops busted by Amazon for violating a Terms of Service agreement. Feeling kind of sore over it, he's decided that if some anal third-party treats him like that, he might as well treat everyone else like that, too.

        Problem is, his anger is misdirected. Getting all nasty with this guy over something so piddly in no way gets back at Amazon for whatever wrong, real or perceived, they rained down on him.

        He had his iPhone app pulled, so he'll be damned if he lets someone else h

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Sounds to me like the guy has his chops busted by Amazon for violating a Terms of Service agreement.

          Bullshit, he licenses his stuff legally, if Amazon doesn't want to license it he doesn't use it. Unlike these other guys, who flatout ignore copyright and get defended here on slashdot, even though this is a clear case of why copyright is necessary.

          I think it's more about, you know, someone else illegaly using his art.

          If you've ever known an artist, you'd already know that even excellent artists don't make shit for their work. Stealing copyright is a very big deal because artists need every little red cen

          • Bullshit, he licenses his stuff legally, if Amazon doesn't want to license it he doesn't use it.

            I'll see your bullshit and raise you one.

            He posted the iPhone app sometime around the beginning of April [delicious-monster.com] in spite of Amazon clearly stating [amazon.com], "You will not, without our express prior written approval...use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device." He didn't pull his app until July 7 [tuaw.com].

            From TFA:

            Amazon g

    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:54PM (#29431101) Homepage

      Dude... thanks for telling.

      I though this was about the icons and glyphs, which in many high-quality applications are actually designed by external design studios for lots of money. I can imagine getting pissed about somebody taking something which you actually had to pay quite a bit for.

      But this is just a woodgrain texture, and a pretty ugly one at it.
      I mean seriously, it isn't hard to make a woodgrain texture lots better than that one:
      5 minute photoshop tutorial: http://www.tutorio.com/tutorial/photoshop-wood-texture [tutorio.com]
      Free windows program for making wood textures: http://www.spiralgraphics.biz/ww_overview.htm [spiralgraphics.biz]

      Heck, for all we know he actually used one of these or a source image, in which case he couldn't even claim copyright over it since anybody who made it themselves using such methods would end up with an identical texture.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bemopolis (698691)
        If it's that easy to "make a woodgrain texture lots better than that one", then how come none of those lazy bastards did it instead of poaching his?
      • I mean seriously, it isn't hard to make a woodgrain texture lots better than that one

        Which should lead to the rather obvious question that most people who state that it's "just a stupid background image" seem not to naturally stumble into...

        If it's so easy, why didn't the accused do so, instead of copy/pasting from this guy?

    • And yet, his own software, that he sells as $40 shareware for the Mac (...why?!), is designed specifically to display copyrighted and/or trademarked cover art of other people's software/music/etc, in its entirety, without the permission of the copyright/trademark holders. Did he ask them? I doubt it. Is it Fair Use? Pretty clear "no" on that, it doesn't check any of the boxes.

      He gets the artwork from Amazon, with permission. In fact, Amazon provides an API for this.

  • Guy A infringes on Guy B's copyright.
    Guy B calls out Guy A on Twitter.
    Guy A removes the infringed images.

    I at least expected 4-5 cross-referenced blog posts from each party containing legal threats and shouting about what a tool the other was. Instead, the situation was resolved amicably. Yawn. Call me when Kanye West does something retarded again.

  • by GargamelSpaceman (992546) on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @04:38PM (#29430803) Homepage Journal

    Even in 16 bit color the set of all possible 32x32 icons is 67,108,864 bytes, ( 67 megs )for 32 bit color it's 4,398,046,511,104 or 4 terabytes.

    For 64x64 icons in 32 bit color, it's 17,592,186,044,416 bytes, or 17 terabytes.

    I am surprised some copyright troll doesn't copyright the set of all 128 x 128 icons at 32 bit color depth ( comprising 70 terabytes ) and then sue everyone who uses a new icon in any product into oblivion. Every possible icon would be contained in one of those copyrighted icons either in whole or in part. It might be worthwhile to copyright commonly used lower color depths as well, though it shouldn't be strictly necessary.

    • oops. I just made a dumbass mistake. Damn it. I suck.
  • I mean, when a program goes so long without being updated, touched, or improved upon in any way shape or form, it's gotta be public domain, right?
  • Hmm, right-click save an image? really, people do this?

    Stolen images update: Tom from Netwalk apologized, said he didnâ(TM)t know it was my texture, promised a resubmitted MyMovies update tonight!

    At a past company our web designers used to get their stock images randomly off the web, you know, the 'professional looking girl wearing the headset', for our web chat, etc., they used these images on our corporate site. Management was contacted once about it once I believe, they of course had no idea it w

    • by The Moof (859402)

      But really, I've never heard of a web designer getting a budget to purchase high grade professional images.

      Serious web design companies do (or at least should) have a subscription to some sort of stock photography provider. It's not usually something that comes up when talking with clients. It helps protect clients from complaints about copyright/usage infringements. Think about the great press you'd get if you built a site for a client, and they get sued for copyright infringement because of images you found in your Google search.

  • I don't think the author of TFA knows much Copyright law;

    And, yes, these tweets were reproduced with permission.

    The tweets are facts directly cited from the source. It could be argued the guy has no copyright claim to them in this context. No wonder the US's Copyright system is broke. The people that talk about it don't even understand it fully.

  • But "Technically Legal" even said he had not registered the picture, which is required in America.

    I am upset by the whole thing. I wanted to see have his day in court, and at the last minute "Mother Nature" or "God" shows up as a witness for the defense...
    • But "Technically Legal" even said he had not registered the picture, which is required in America. I am upset by the whole thing. I wanted to see have his day in court, and at the last minute "Mother Nature" or "God" shows up as a witness for the defense...

      You don't have to register a copyright, but it lets you pursue statutory damages.

  • For this guy to whine about "theft" and "losses" is wonderfully short-sighted.

    Instead, if I'd been in his position (ie a tiny independent software developer making what is probably about $5 a month from their software) I'd have contact them and congratulated them on their taste, then asked them to credit me with the fact that they I'd created that background. Bingo! Instant GOOD publicity as opposed to promptly making myself look like a whinging tool.

    "Oh, you hired Wil Shipley? Isn't he that guy who always

    • If you think Wil Shipley is making "probably about $5 a month from their software" you've clearly never heard of him.

      Put it this way, he's currently selling his super charged Lotus pending delivery of his Tesla roadster.

  • In 3...2...1... queue the replies about how twitter is only good if you want to know every time someone takes a crap, so what the hell is the point anyway... .
  • Why didn't he just ask Apple to pull the offending apps from the App Store? They've done it for less arbitrary reasons and with much flimsier evidence.

I cannot draw a cart, nor eat dried oats; If it be man's work I will do it.

Working...