I need help with some questions answered about copyright infringement

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>


Here is the scenario:





I built a basic website for a small to medium sized company here
in Little Rock Arkansas over four years ago where I did all the
photography and design work. The photography included shooting all
their items in their inventory plus exterior shots of the building,
trucks and their products out in the field. When I built the website
I made a simple directions page that had a map that linked to yahoo
maps plus I added two thumbnail images of simple road signs to add to the fact that this was a directions page. I
ended up coping two straight forward road sign images from yahoo images. Both of these images where sized at approx
180 pixel x 70 pixel and where at a strange 96dpi for the web.


Just a few days ago this company received a letter from Getty Images. Getty Images is
claiming that one of the road sign images is/was copyrighted by one of
their photographers and that they are owed 600.00 no questions asked, paid right now.


Today I talked to one of my contract job's project administrators
that handles huge national photography projects and he said he
thought if an image on the web was not noted with copyright info
written on it or if it did not have copyright info in the meta data
then the image was not protected and then open to be copied.


With this said I would have never used an image that was
copyrighted where I thought a thumbnail road sign image would not have been of such importance. I think Getty Images is just trying to push
people around by scaring them since they are such a huge imaging
company where they just think people will fold and pay them the
money. As a working photographer in a tough market I personally would
not flip my lid and try and charge someone 600 dollars for such a
small, low quality and unimportant image. If someone was to use one
of my images that I put on the web I make sure to upload them at a
very small size where I wouldn't really care if someone used it
because of this fact.


Does anyone have any info/suggestions that they could give me from a
professional point of few? We have since taken the image down and
have given an apology where Getty Images is still going to pursue
collecting the money. If the fee was lower and more reasonable I
would just pay it since they are claiming that it was copyrighted but
600 dollars for a thumbnail sized image for web use is outrageous. Remember I downloaded this image 4 to 5 years ago where since then the web has progressed in many ways and that includes copyright rules.

Based on my limited research in copyright laws, it's my understanding that a work does not need to be explicitly marked as "copyright" for it to be protected under US laws.


The mere act of creating the work (i.e. a photograph) automatically gives it a copyright per a change in the copy right laws by the US congress sometime back in the 1970's, if my memory is correct.

Yea it looks pretty cut and dry at this point but the only thing that gets me is how small and unimportant the image is. I can walk outside my house and take a picture of a road sign. I just don't know what I was thinking at that time when I added it to the site. 600 dollars is way to much for this image and what it was used for. Talk about price gouging!

Geoff is correct.


I would remove the image asap and ignore the demand for the $600. I'm sure other letters will follow but I doubt there will be any legal action taken.

Unfortunatly I have spent to much time with an attorney talking about company matters


If I had done what you have done so far, our attorney would have chewed me out for sending an apology letter.


Second, what you didn't say is, Have you verified that the picture does indeed belong to them. I would want to see that proof before I paid a thing.


If you have done a search of internet about this I think you will find alot of people getting the same type of letter.

Once we received the letter I was told to remove the image immediately which I did and the warehouse business manager wrote a email back to the Getty company saying that the image had been removed and that they were not aware that the particular image was copyrighted . An apology was sent as well where Getty's wrote back no excuses and your still responsible to cover the fee. Yesterday I advised the local business that I built the site for to turn it over to their attorney and have him ask for paperwork to be sent to him to verify when the road sign image became property of the Getty's company. Getty Images states that this image is property of one of their photograpahers and that they are taking action because he works for them. I would think that most big organizations would be ok with you taking the image down and be done with it but Getty's seems to be willing to take legal action by the sound of their letters of course. The local business is scared because they have a lot more to loose then say me. I would have laughed at Getty's if they tried to contact me.

Here is the last response Getty sent:



<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Thank you for your email. The image at issue in this
settlement is a Getty Rights Managed (RM) image, exclusively available for
license through <span style="border-bottom: 2px dotted #366388; cursor: pointer;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1281762485_5"]Getty Images and would have required the appropriate licensing
prior to its use on your website. Getty Images has been unable to find the
necessary licenses for this use.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Despite the removal of the image from the <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'sans-serif';"]http://www.________________
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]website, the prior unauthorized use of the image on the website resulted
in the aesthetic enhancement of the website, which the law considers a benefit
to ----------------------. Since <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1281762485_7"]copyright infringement already
occurred, payment for that benefit is necessary. We are acting on behalf
of our represented photographers who are entitled to compensation for the use
of their intellectual property. Please understand we stand to protect our
photographers from copyright infringement even if it was unintentional.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Absent the appropriate licenses surrounding the specific use of
the image in question &ndash; the settlement amount of $600.00 as presented,
represents what Getty Images would expect to receive in a matter such as this
for the unauthorized use of our represented photographer&rsquo;s image. Please
understand that, as exclusive licensor of the image in question, Getty Images
is seeking compensation for the unauthorized usage of our represented
photographers work. Getty Images&rsquo; responsibility to its represented
photographers is not only to appropriately license the use of their images to
its customers, but to also protect its represented photographer&rsquo;s intellectual
property from unauthorized use and to maintain the exclusive availability of
the image through Getty Images. Getty Images needs to recover the lost
licensing fees along with its substantial costs of enforcement (Actual
Damages). Had the infringement not occurred, Getty Images would not have had to
deploy the additional resources needed to pursue this matter with respect to
the infringing website.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Please get
back to me with your intentions, or with any further questions you may have, so
that we may resolve this issue as quickly and as amicably as possible.
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]
<p class="yiv1862720908MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"]Best Regards,

With all due respect, why didn't you take pictures of the road signs while you were shooting all of their products?


If I were handling it, I'd ask how much to license the images for the intended use. If it came in lower than $600, I'd have the attorneys settle for that amount. Otherwise, I'd suggest paying the $600 and moving onward. Your lawyers can burn that much long before the matter is settled.


I'd also explore whether those pictures were unique enough to command a price or even to be able to determine that Getty's images match what you had copied.

FYI, you should do a bit of digging on the web before even considering paying what they want. Getty is notorious for legal bullying and to my knowledge have never followed through on their legal threats.

It always suprises me as to why someone would take a image that does not belong to them and use it to make money. It is plain theft, and stealing a small item versus a large one is still dishonest.


The image likely has a signature recorded in the exif or code that identifies it. Getty and others have search engines that scour the web for unauthorized use of their images.


Just pay up, and count it as a lesson learned.

I heard it all now. $600 for a road sign anyone could have taken. I read a book by Nancy Wolff (professional photographer's legal handbook). It's actually a decent book and gives you insight as to how the "system" works. I believe this is the book where they talked about taking pictures of the golden gate bridge and some guy tried to copyright it and sue everyone. The judge ruled that anyone and their mother could have taken that shot and there was no artistic skill involved. He lost. Another example had a picture of someone standing infront of a sign/picture (prolly in New York) I believe. That artist/person tried to sue over the copyright he had on the sign. Judge said the sign wasn't the main focus of the picture. He lost. I'm not a professional, but at best, this guy might try and take you to court and get laughed at as you show a snapshot of the 0.3% of the screen he thinks he owns for $600. I think he owes you for the publicity you have given to him. I know if I ever want a shot of a sign post, I'll be knocking on his door. As a side note, most people think that just because they took the picture, it is copyrighted. That doesn't always hold up in court. I think now you have to go to the government website and pay for it. It's only $30 for a crap load of pictures and only takes a few minutes to do. Of course, as seen above, that doesn't always hold up in court either. The book I mentioned...you might want to read pages 126 and 127. Sorry ahead of time for your ordeal. If life was fair, everybody would have one. Best of luck.


Greg

I wonder if the owner of the graphic that was on the road sign can sue Getty for copyright infringment?


Unfortunatly you are not the one they are going to try and collect from, it is your client or employer you made the web page for. If it is a client I am sure they are looking to you to resolve this.


I wouldn't do anything about until they prove that the picture does belong to them. Your client may see this diffrently.

I wonder if the owner of the graphic that was on the road sign can sue Getty for copyright infringment?


Unfortunatly you are not the one they are going to try and collect from, it is your client or employer you made the web page for. If it is a client I am sure they are looking to you to resolve this.


I wouldn't do anything about until they prove that the picture does belong to them. Your client may see this diffrently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAMB

FYI, you should do a bit of digging on the web before even considering paying what they want. Getty is notorious for legal bullying and to my knowledge have never followed through on their legal threats.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Hi IAMB:


Well I'm here to tell you that Getty most certainly does follow through on it's threats. Yes they do bully and in my opinion use rather underhanded tactics to accomplish their goal,, BUT THEY DO PROCEED TO COURT!!! Five years ago I had a new website http://www.northernguideservices.com/index.html designed and built by a nationally know company. It was a successful project that defiantly increased my market share for my business in my area. While it was being built I was pretty active in choosing photos for the site from ones that this company supplied me with. We were told that all of the photos had been taken care of by the building company, and they did as far as we all knew at that time. However it got lost in the translation or fine print or what ever that the ones that were from Getty were only paid for a usage for very limited usage time from the time of when use started. Within one week from the 1yr. anniversary date we received a letter from Getty stating that we owed them $16,000. It went on to say because we were the end user we were the party that was responsible for paying Getty. They also said we had to take down all the pictures or we would need to be paying additional amounts anally for the privilege of using their photos. Needless to say we didn't have the money, we told Getty that and they basically said your tough luck pay us the money or we will sue you for it. Well I was in a wonderful humor after that correspondence so I called the build company told them the situation and basically assured them that if I got sued that I was coming after them for way more money, and that they had better replace the photos from Getty with ones that were of equal value and impact on the perspective clients. When the build company balked a bit about having to redo all of this work for nothing I gave them one chance to make all things right or they would regret their decision. The bottom line was I can be a real Pr*ck if someone wants to cross me, which I let them know in no uncertain terms. Just ask anyone that knows me. They did the rebuild for nothing and it came out great. Every bit as good as the original if not better.


Fast forwarding a smidgen and the build company dragged their feet on negotiating with Getty on our behalf. That was when we got notice that Getty was in fact pushing forward with a suit against us and we did end up in court. I with my attorney, Getty's attorney and the build companies attorney. Things went on for two days in court before the judge encouraged all of the involved parties to try to come to agreement and settle out of court. A week later the final compromise was reached buy all three parties. It broke down that the build firm would pay Getty $4000.00, 25% of what they were asking for the use of the pictures and court and legal fees for all. They really had no choice since if Getty was successful against me I would pile it on to them a lot heavier than what I got.


As far as your situation the good news is that from my experience Getty can be brought to the bargaining table to secure a lesser payment. Which I had and still suspect it their intended goal to begin with, with us and I would suspect is what they use for a strategy on a regular basis.


So don't ever let anyone tell you not to take potential legal threats about copyright infringement seriously. Because in fact they do happen!!! Best of luck with it all.





Godspeed


Wayne














<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]Thanks for taking your time to write a
reply everybody. We will see what happens as Getty is pursuing the
party rental company for payment because they have more money. I
agree with the fact that I think Getty Images is pursuing this simple
road sign image a little to far, but if your a money grubber that's
what you do. I think that they are just trying to serve as the NAZI
organization of imagery where they want to own the rights to
everything image related. I know a few specific photographers that
cover high profile sports and events from around the US that think
Getty's is killing the photographer market. These freelance
photographers make all their money buy selling their images to
different magazines and new organizations where Getty images has such
a vast resource of photographers willing to turn over their images
for nothing that its making it hard for these guys to compete with
travel expenses added. It kind of sounds like the Walmart fiasco even
though I like shopping at walmart for the most part. The fact is five
years ago I did not have a grasp on all the different areas of
photography matters as I do now. As far as ever doing this again, I
will make sure to only submit my photography no matter how
insignificant I think an image may be.

Try not to get too emotional about it. Yes, $600 for a thumbnail isextortion, but $600 won't get you far if you need to hire a lawyer to fight them. Maybe 3 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iguide

So don't ever let anyone tell you not to take potential legal threats about copyright infringement seriously

---

Wayne is pretty much right on that. It's sad that you can have companies that pirate movies,ect, and majorCorps. can't win in court to close them, but an innocentmistake like this and they are trying to rape ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

Getty Images is
claiming that one of the road sign images is/was copyrighted by one of
their photographers and that they are owed 600.00 no questions asked, paid right now.

---

I think I read that the minimum penalty allowed by law for copyright infringement is $200. Maybe Getty would settle for that amount.

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]Thanks again for the replies folks. I'm
sure the company that I did the website for will just end up paying
the fee as they are really concerned about the additional legal
fees and such that Getty Images could rack up pursuing this matter.
The cost of hiring a local copyright attorney would not be cost
effective as that would most likely cost more then the penalty fee.
The party rental companies lawyer already mentioned in a previous
email to us that he knows nothing about copyright matters and that we
would need to seek specialized help in this matter. On the other hand
If Getty Images would have contacted me directly as my name and
freelance business is directly on the party rental home page, Id
handle it differently. They would have to do many things to prove to
me that they have the rights to this image. They would have to show
written proof when this mystery photographer's image became property
of their company, If the image matches the one that we had listed on
the website, when the image was copyrighted if that was done, show
me the image for sale on their website, fees they charge on their
website for using this image. Id also have them break down the 600
dollar fee they are charging and explain this in greater detail.
Again, the image I downloaded that Getty's is claiming they
own/represent was 180 pixels by 70 pixels. Its so small that if you
where to blow it up to a 4 x 6 print it would be unrecognizable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

...when the image was copyrighted if that was done...

---

A minor correction: since all images are automatically copyrighted the instant they are taken, I think what you mean is "...when the image copyright was *registered*, if that was done...". Registration only helps if the authenticity of the ownership of copyright is in question (such as may be the case here).

Perhaps it sounds silly, but I think they are trying to put you into a corner. 600$ for such an image is just enough so you can pay it and it's too little for you to put an attorney onto. It's also not so little that you will stay away from paying until having like 3 reminders and they will give up the battle. It's exactly in the "right" zone...


I think they chose this amount just to pull some money. If I were you I would seriously ask for a detailed explanation of where the 600 dollars came from and also ask for the things you already mentioned yourself.


Anyway good luck with it.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\WAYNEA~1.DER\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01 \clip_filelist.xml" />

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->



<style>
&lt;!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
--&gt;
</style>

<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->



<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\WAYNEA~1.DER\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01 \clip_filelist.xml" />

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->



<style>
&lt;!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
--&gt;
</style>

<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->


The thing that needs to be remembered here is freelanceshots is not
the one that is liable here. It is the end consumer<span style="font-weight: normal;"]that is. While Jan is most likely correct in his
assessment Getty could always take him to small claims court and also go after
court costs also. Getty would be more prepared for that than the end consumer
and that is where they would need to produce the evidence of their claim. Most
people don't want to go to court unless forced &amp; Getty most likely knows that. Believe me they will also be ready for court!<span style="font-size: 9pt;"]<o:p></o:p>


<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"]</input><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>

I initially did not think of saying this directly because of the example of my experience with Getty I thought made it clear as to what tactic to use with Getty. The end user negotiates with Getty to a lower price. From my experience not only did I directly see them do this but how it developed gave me the impression that Getty was asking way more than what they were willing to accept as an end price. I suspect they use this tactic for shock value with the idea of taking less since most people would feel fortunate to pay a lower asking price. If they can get what they are asking well all is well and good in that case, but they are really expecting to negotiate downward to an end price. That is why they initially start so high in asking value. Try that and see how it goes.


<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"]</input><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>

The company settled with Getty images and paid 300.00. Deal done where I still think that was way to much for the image. I learned my lesson where now that I am more of an established photographer I would never pull anything from the web without permission.

Thanks for the update and letting us know how it worked out in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

The company settled with Getty images and paid 300.00. Deal done where I still think that was way to much for the image. I learned my lesson where now that I am more of an established photographer I would never pull anything from the web without permission.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Which is what I said they would do. Thanks for the up date. Glad it worked out fairly well for all!





Godspeed


Wayne

Thanks for sharing your experiences, so that we may all learn from it.


I

Yea basically anything that you did not write, design, or photograph is off limits no matter where it is on the web or how crappy or insignificant it may seem. Just keep that in mind if you ever see your images being used without your permission. There is no real need to register the image or even write your name or company name on the image for this rule to take effect. If you have the original and can document that it came from you then the law has you covered and you can charge the user a pretty high fee. Maybe worth it just to buy the software to track your images on the web and make you an your attorney some extra money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

Maybe worth it just to buy the software to track your images on the web and make you an your attorney some extra money.

---

That reminds me of that recent news item about how scientists have started using lawyers instead of laboratory rats.It seems that there are not only more of them, but you don't get so emotionallyattached. "Laboratory lawyers", as they have come to be called by lab workers,have opened open entirely new avenues of study. After all, there are some thingseven a rat wont do. The only problem is that it's difficult to apply theexperimental results to humans. [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

... Maybe worth it just to buy the software to track your images on the web and make you an your attorney some extra money.

---

What is the name of the Software?


Rich

Actually, I've found that there is a wealth of images that are available for use on the web. For example, need a star or space image? NASA photographs are generally not protected by copyright. See


http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html


Need an aerial or satellite image of aparticular area? The US Geological Survey has a nice site were you can down-load images.


Just make sure to read the fine print.


Hope this helps,





Geoff

I don't know the specific brand name of the software but there are companies that sell it. I remember seeing one advertised not long ago but did not look at it long enough to remember any details.


"Many corporations have programs called "spiders" that will search out images
and text on Web pages. If it matches the criteria (same file name, content
matches, and other things), they will flag that site for review and it will
be reviewed for copyright infringement. These spiders are always surfing the
net, and new companies are using them all the time." Quote taken from the website: www.webdesign.about.com


-See there I gave credit where credits due-