Superstock Claiming Copyright Infringement

[greenivy]

I was also in the bad category. I somehow got a picture on my "mortgage" page of my website. I have always purchased pictures from IStock but...not these. It is a useless picture that need not even be on the page. I have no idea how it got there.

They want $2200 and I do not have it nor do I think they are entitled. I can't fing it on their site. I do not know how a consumer would even get the picture!

The attorney for Superstock is going to send it out to outside counsel. I have removed the picture and the attorney has not forwarded the licensing agreement they have for the picture.

Keep me posted as to what I can do.

[yoyoma]

hey greenivy. i'm curious to know what your outcome was?

[Bubba Jimmy]

SuperStock aggresively defends its copyright protected material with every lawful remedy available under the United States Copyright Act. If you ignor demands for payment, we do refer cases to litigation counsel.

If the fee for licensing the image for three months is indeed $195 then we both know that you would not recover much more than your actual damages from the owner of this website under the damages provisions of Title 17 of the U.S.C., particularly if s/he removed the picture as soon as they were aware of your company's copyright. Therefore, I seriously doubt your company is going to go to any great expense to litigate damages of $195.

Now, I don't recommend the OP ignore demands for payment but I would agree to at most reimbursement for the actual license fee the copyright holder is entitled to according to their public offer to license the image. And I would not feel particularly intimidated by the meaningless bluster of their legal department.

[aaron]

The post you are responding to was left in 2006; but odds are he's talking about DMCA take-down notices, along with seeking statutory damages and attorney fees for violation of their registered copyright.