Another copyright question....

[Pat Whatley]

So, where does my responsibility to enforce somebody else's rights end?

I've got an "ad agency" that routinely over the years has sent me artwork from istockphoto.com that they've just copied and cropped. Sometimes they have half-assed an attempt at Photoshopping out the watermark, sometimes they crop the pictures around it, sometimes they've just ignored it. If all I'm doing it printing exactly what they send me as final art should I worry about it?

I recently had a guy bring me photographs for a restaurant that told me his photographer had taken the pictures with the CORBIS watermark on them because that was just something the camera did.

Just this morning I had somebody bring me "artwork" for some cut vinyl using a picture he'd autotraced from istockphoto.com. I know it came from there and that he autotraced it because if you know what you're looking at you can make out about half that little camera watermark in the middle of it. He told me he drew it, I didn't question it.

So, my question is that if a customer tells me they created the artwork, or own the rights to the artwork should I question them? If they bring me a bunch of non-watermarked Google images and tell me they took the photographs am I supposed to make them prove it? Is there a release I should have them sign or something?

 

[BigfishDM]

Thats tricky but having them sign something like that might not keep you out of trouble if something does happen.

 

[SignManiac]

Get in writing from them that they are authorized to use the artwork supplied to you and except all financial liability if its ever in question...

 

[Fred Weiss]

I would write up a short handout that explains about watermarks ... why they are there, what they mean and how to get an unwatermarked version. End it with a statement that reproducing a watermarked image is illegal and can make both the customer and you subject to substantial civil and criminal penalties ... therefore, it is the policy of Pat Whatley Signs to require any image supplied for reproduction to be free of watermarks or any other claims of copyrights.

Doing it as a written handout keeps it from getting personal and implies that such activity happens often enough that you have prepared a written handout.

 

[Joe Diaz]

Man I don't get the trying to photoshop out the istock watermark thing. Istock images are soooooo cheap to begin with. The amount of time it would take someone to steal from istock would probably cost more in labor then it would to simply buy the art.

I can understand using a watermarked image for staging or sketch purposes and then buying the art when it is needed for the final project, but anything else just seems wrong.

"Ad agency" my rear end.

Sorry I didn't answer your question Pat. If you are just producing someone else's "designs" I wouldn't think it would be your responsibility, but it might be best to do as the others on this thread are suggesting, get something in writing and cover your butt.

 

[GoodPeopleFlags]

Not only would it bother me to reproduce something illegally, it would also bother me for the customer to think they're "getting one over" on me.

 

[Fred Weiss]

Sorry I didn't answer your question Pat. If you are just producing someone else's "designs" I wouldn't think it would be your responsibility, but it might be best to do as the others on this thread are suggesting, get something in writing and cover your butt.

I don't think that's an assumption you can make with any certainty and I don't think you can assume that the customer can protect you from liability in the event of legal action.

 

[Gino]

I don't think that's an assumption you can make with any certainty and I don't think you can assume that the customer can protect you from liability in the event of legal action.

I kinda agree with this. If you know there is a possibility of some foul play and you still proceed.... even with a signed statement as to the artwork in question.... you're still committing a wrong by not acting on your knowledge.

If you know it's wrong.... it's wrong. To what degree a wrong is doesn't really enter into any equation. There is RIGHT...... and there is WRONG. No in between area.

Does it matter if you'd go to jail for a week or three months ?? Is it worth ruining your career, your business or your life over someone else's stupidity and then your trying to find a loophole to get around it ??

 

[Joe Diaz]

I don't think that's an assumption you can make with any certainty and I don't think you can assume that the customer can protect you from liability in the event of legal action.

Your right I don't know in pat's case. To be honest it really never comes up here, and if it did we would explain to the client that we noticed the watermark and treat it the same way we do when someone wants us to create a Calvin peeing on a Ford logo decal.

But how can company like a sign shop possibly be responsible for all the artwork that comes in. Do you expect a sign shop to check if the fonts, imagery and photos on provided artwork where all legally obtained by the client?

Have your lawyer help you draft up a document protecting you. It should more or less state that the client has agreed that the artwork they supplied you with is their property, that they have the rights to have the artwork produced by you. If they lie to you, they are responsible.

 

[B Snyder]

If you know it's wrong.... it's wrong. To what degree a wrong is doesn't really enter into any equation. There is RIGHT...... and there is WRONG. No in between area.

Even if you don't know it's wrong, it's wrong. Ignorance is not an excuse. I'm sure you know what happens when someone is found with stolen property that they weren't aware was stolen.

 

[wildside]

We have one of those hand outs made up that the client signs and dates.

Our attorney recently took a look at it for me, he said that if it makes me feel better to use it, then use it, however, when it comes down to it, any corporate attorney will use it as a wet nap on his way to my financials.

he said it will deter the "locals" trying to do a one over on ya, so use one or don't, in the end, a court will decide your involvement during the proceedings

*we still use it anyway* personally i feel some protection from it, or at least i sleep a little better, however blaintent uses of stuff, we refuse to do

 

[Fred Weiss]

But how can company like a sign shop possibly be responsible for all the artwork that comes in. Do you expect a sign shop to check if the fonts, imagery and photos on provided artwork where all legally obtained by the client?

No, but I do expect anyone in the business of reproducing customer supplied artwork to respect visible copyright notices (such as a watermark), whether they're from iStock or the sign shop down the street.

 

[Joe Diaz]

No, but I do expect anyone in the business of reproducing customer supplied artwork to respect visible copyright notices (such as a watermark), whether they're from iStock or the sign shop down the street.

Of course Fred, When did I say the opposite???

Here is an example of what Vistaprint states in their terms of use under: Use of Site

You are granted permission to access and use this Site and its Content for the sole purpose of preparing, evaluating, and ordering products or services solely through Vistaprint (referred to herein as “Products”). No other download, retention, use, publication, or distribution of any portion of the Content is authorized or permitted. Obtaining Products from Vistaprint does not entitle you to use any portion of Content apart from the finished Products as they are supplied by Vistaprint.
You agree to use this Site in a responsible manner that is in full compliance with these Terms of Use and with your local laws and regulations, including export and import regulations. Without limitation, no portion of Content may be utilized as a trademark or service mark, for any pornographic use, for any unlawful purpose or use, to defame any person, to violate any person’s right of privacy or publicity, to infringe upon any copyright, trade name, trademark, service mark or other intellectual property right of any person or entity. You agree that you will not use the Site to produce Products that are offensive, unlawful, harassing, libelous, threatening, harmful, obscene, malicious or otherwise objectionable. Vistaprint may terminate its service to customers found to be using Vistaprint to engage in undesirable activities.
You are solely responsible for your use of Content in combination with any other images, graphics, text or other materials you incorporate into your Products. You agree that you will not include any text, image, design, trademark, service mark, or any copyrighted work of any third party in your Products unless you have obtained the appropriate authorizations from the owners. You warrant that your Products do not infringe upon any rights of any third party, including copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy, and will not libel or defame any third party, and that you have all required rights or permissions necessary to incorporate third party material into your Products. By placing an order on this Site, you warrant that you have all necessary permission, right and authority to place the order and you authorize Vistaprint to produce the Products on your behalf.

You may not use this Site to send or use e-cards in any manner that would constitute the transmission of Spam or unsolicited e-mails. You may not use scripting or other programs to automate the creation and/or transmission of e-cards. Vistaprint reserves the right, in its sole discretion, at any time, and without prior notice, to limit the number of recipients to which you may send an e-card and/or limit the number of e-cards that you may send.
You agree that you are responsible for protecting your password and controlling access to your registered account. You agree that you will be responsible for all orders placed or other actions that are taken through your registered account.

I would suggest that anyone contact their lawyer and draft up something similar.

 

[Joe Diaz]

We have one of those hand outs made up that the client signs and dates.

Our attorney recently took a look at it for me, he said that if it makes me feel better to use it, then use it, however, when it comes down to it, any corporate attorney will use it as a wet nap on his way to my financials.

he said it will deter the "locals" trying to do a one over on ya, so use one or don't, in the end, a court will decide your involvement during the proceedings

*we still use it anyway* personally i feel some protection from it, or at least i sleep a little better, however blaintent uses of stuff, we refuse to do

I imagine that is how it is with almost anything in court. If a huge corporation wants to take you down for what ever reason, they probably could, even if the "law" is on your side. But having some sort of signed disclaimer is way better than nothing at all. It is one of the few protections you have.

It's that or simply refusing to do any customer supplied artwork. Because how can you ever be 100% certain that customer supplied artwork was created legally.

 

[Fred Weiss]

Of course Fred, When did I say the opposite???

Here is an example of what Vistaprint states in their terms of use under: Use of Site

I would suggest that anyone contact their lawyer and draft up something similar.

Relax Joe ... we know you're one of the good guys. It seemed to me reading your statement which was quoted in my reply that a reader could take that as an excuse to not respect obvious notices.

My position is that one doesn't need a disclaimer for dealing with clients face to face. As Gino said, right is right. What I suggested earlier was an information handout to give to a client who is submitting watermarked or otherwise copyrighted material. That is what Pat's Op was about. I see it as a polite way to inform the customer without offending them at the same time. I cannot envision ever being found guilty of anything for reproducing customer supplied artwork if there are no visible indicators in it that are there for that specific purpose.

They're either there or they aren't. If they are, then I won't reproduce it. If they aren't, then I will.

 

[G-Artist]

I have been on both sides of the copyright issue. Won where I was the plaintiff and won where I was a defendant (named in a suit with multiple others).

I have to say that common sense as well as your gut instinct goes a long way.

Hold-harmless agreements may not cover your costs if your client has no money but will show the court you had no intention of violating IP laws. What you are looking for is to be removed from a suit where everyone in the chain is being named.

Copyright may not be all that you have to worry about. What if you reproduce a photo that appears to be a home snapshot/candid shot and then find yourself, along with others, involved in a privacy violation suit? It can happen as it has happened numerous times in the past to others.

There are a lot of pitfalls in any business. The graphics industry certainly has their share.

Next time you renew your business insurance see how much more it would cost to get a rider for IP and privacy violations if you are not already covered. Chances are it will be very reasonable especially if you show the underwriter that you are currently doing all that you can to not get sued such as employing HH contracts when they do their rate evaluation of your company.

 

[solock]

I can assure you that in the photo industry no letter of indemnification will protect you. The Photographers side (PPA, SMPA etc) is very powerful and make the point several times a year with entrapment enforcement.

Not that its fair, there are tons of great amateur photographers who take pictures of their own kids and labs have refused because there is no release. $10,000 fines will do that to you. We warn them, and refuse without a release. The watermark thing is pure BS and they know it. I know you want the money, but dont sit through a copyright audit, cause its then time to get the BSA involved and check your software licensing etc. It is a no win for you to try.

Not saying its fair, in many cases we see the photographer hasnt done a damn thing to mark his work. No EXIF data, no backprint, no watermark but they still have legal standing if I, the lab, violates their copyright.

 

[ProWraps]

short answer, we dont mess with ANY suspect stuff. watermarked, trademarked, etc. we blanketly say NO, have a good day.

our business is such that we can easily turn those jobs down and on to the next. not worth our time, or our liability.

 

[Mosh]

Not What I want to share.

 

[ProWraps]

Unless it is a national account you most likely won't get busted.

spoken like an illegal alien employin', corn growin', drunk drivin', thieve shootin' ignoramous.

still love you though.