What is with this affinity some warriors have for breaking the law?

49 replies
Example 1;

I was browsing the WSO section and came across an offer from a copywriter who was offering their service at a discount. As part of the pitch this individual included links to some examples of his/her work. One of those links lead to a WSO with copy that was accompanied with an image of a famous celebrity.

Example 2;

I came across a marketer who in a marketing campaign used images of celebrities and was giving advice on how to be successfull to new people to marketing.

*******************************************

Although I am not psychic, I am more than willing to hazard a bet that neither of the above individuals had legal permision to use these images. I wonder if these people are aware that what they are doing is a federal offense in most civilised countries. They risk not only substantial fines if caught, but possible jail time as well.

Getty images are notorious for having their lawyers scouring the internet trying to catch people out and sending them letters demanding substantal amounts of money.

What disturbs me is the fact that in both of the above cases, the wso owner and thread starter, were handing out 'business advice' to new people to internet marketing.

I'm not even going to bother with the 'professional' copywriter.

In case anybody reading this is confused at this point, you cannot randomly take pictures from the internet of famous celebrities (or anybody else for that matter) and use them in marketing campaigns without express written permision to do so, not only from the subjects themselves, but the photographer of the image as well.

(Even if you took the photograph of the celebrity/person, you still need a signed release)

This also includes images licenced under creative commons and even public domain in some cases.

**********************************************

Example 3;

Taking other peoples content and spinning it.

**********************************************

Here is the opinion of the warrior forums resident legal expert;

Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

I was asked to look at this thread and offer any guidance.

In my view, a "spun" article is clearly a derivative work and is an infringement of copyright.

Title 17 US Code Section 106, and section 101 defining "derivative work".

It is a mistake to get hung up on the "words" used versus the "expression".
You can read the thread here; http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post3287555

Again if caught, you face serious fines and jail time.

Unfortunately, many people on this forum still think this is ok as long as you don't get caught.

************************************************

Example 4;

Using trademarks in domain names.

******************************************

Again, I will refer to the opinion of the forums resident legal expert;

Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

Anyway, we're talking trademarks here, not copyright. Two different issues.

Basically, as usual, a ton of garbage on this thread. It depends on what the domain is and what the website is about. No one can divine any opinion without knowing this information.

For example, for a product called Garvin these will be a problem:

garvin.com

officialgarvingps.com


If your website sells Garvin products, this will probably not be a problem:

garvinsforsale.com

If you hate Garvin this is a possibility:

garvinsucks.com

If you have a funny site with pictures of mistaken GPS directions:

garvinfunnydirections.com

If you repair Garvins:

garvinrepairshop.com

In other words, there are many legal ways to use a company name or trademark in a domain. Myself, I have hundreds of such domains.

A trademark does not give a company monopoly rights preventing any use of their trademark. The purpose of a trademark is to avoid consumer confusion as to who is responsible for a product.

Otherwise, no one, such as Best Buy, could sell Garvins without mentioning the product name. How is that going to work? Heck, I wouldn't even be able to mention Best Buy.

The big problem you see over and over with trademarks is getting a domain just of the company name, or improperly using a website. For instance, if your name is bobgarvin it would be one thing to have garvin.com with your personal blog, but quite another to have gps listings with Adsense ads that naturally showed Garvin products.
Thread here; http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ks-domain.html

To be fair, a lot of the time you hear about this type of scenario on this forum, the person who got caught out was not neccesarily breaking the law intentionally, but more so out of ignorance.

(Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law by the way)

**********************************************

I could go on all day about the many illegal and unethical things some members of this community do, some intentionally, others out of ignorance but the point of this post is to educate and remind people that it is quite easy to fall foul of the law, even without realizing it. The above examples are probably the most common you will hear about on this forum.

Just because our business's are web based, doesn't mean the effects on the victims of these crimes is any less harmfull.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you"

Peace out!
Chris
#affinity #breaking #law #warriors
  • Profile picture of the author WhiteDove
    Good piece man!
    Signature

    Dianne
    WhiteDove
    War Room Member

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5734304].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by WhiteDove View Post

      Good piece man!
      It never hurts to be reminded. Especially when we have new members.

      -Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5734589].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marko87
    Yeah it doesn't help much when there is a lot of grey area in the laws that people break. Whenever these topics get brought up there are a thousand different opinions which is probably a reflection of how complicated these laws actually are.

    Factor in that unless you are pulling giant numbers either in money or traffic then nothing is usually going to happen to you, it is unsurprising that many people just go ahead and do this stuff regardless.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5734724].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author itsjordan
    I don't think it's an affinity.

    We all break the law hundreds of time every year. I'm sure nobody here is a complete saint.

    The crimes you're outlining are grey areas that people take shortcuts on. Everybody is looking to get ahead and often people take shortcuts that fit into the grey areas of the law. I'm sure everybody on this forum who drives is guilty of speeding at some point, speeding causes a lot of people to lose their lives every year, but you don't really judge somebody for going 40 in a 30 zone.

    Singing "Happy Birthday" in public is copywrite infringement. Does that mean you're not going to sing it?

    This is only anecdotal and doesn't prove anything but:

    My good friend grew up in Africa. He grew up in a very poor and hostile environment. He does marketing and I can guarantee he wouldn't bat an eye at stealing a picture of Jennifer Aniston for his site. He'd laugh at the pettyness of such a crime.

    It's different strokes for different folks. I don't think it's worth getting annoyed about. People will take shortcuts. Nobody is perfect.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5734784].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
      Banned
      Originally Posted by kcartlidge View Post

      I do.

      The road may look safe and may, in fact, even be safe. Yet it's 30 for a reason even if you don't know what that reason is.

      You may be on one of those roads where the limit is ridiculously low, but just because it seems that way doesn't mean it is. Maybe the surface is always slippy. Maybe it's regularly used by children playing.

      Whatever the reason, if someone drives 40 in a 30 then they are an idiot and I most assuredly do judge them. I just hope they grow up before it is too late.
      A very hard hitting UK tv ad to get drivers to cut down on speeding.

      For the sake of making up a few seconds of time, is this something you'd be prepared to pay the price in advance for?

      It's 30mph for a reason!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5744880].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author davejug1
    Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post


    (Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law by the way)
    This is a very pertinent key message. The law in many countries states either directly or indirectly that ignorance can not be used as a defense. Especially important given that I might live in the UK, have my websites hosted in Singapore and sell to US consumers. If I inadvertently break the law in any of those countries I'm liable and all three countries might have different rules so I need to know which laws I am bound by by performing an action.

    It's a minefield.
    Signature
    FREE List Building help. Click here!

    Yes I do have freebies!

    Expertise comes not through knowledge or skills, but through practice
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5734884].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

    What is with this affinity warriors have for breaking the law?
    They're an overlapping mixture of "don't knows" and "don't cares", aren't they?

    These people are a problem for all of us.

    It's directly because of their activities that some people think we must all be "spammers and scammers" just because we're internet marketers.

    And it's also directly their fault that we get more and more restrictive and better-enforced laws and regulations, and that the FTC (and equivalent/similar bodies) get bigger and more efficient all the time.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5734946].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
    Example #5:

    .......I drove through a stop sign this morning......

    RoD

    P.S. I'm silly when I don't have my coffee.........
    Signature
    "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
    - Jim Rohn
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5735005].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bredfan
      One of my clients got sued by a big photo repository for copyright infringement.

      It was for a 200 x 200 image - kind of a throw away image - used on one of the deep interior pages of his site. His designer in India had built the page.

      The license for the photo would have been about $2.00. Instead, they worked it out, after $1200 in legal fees.

      I'm now in the middle of an audit of my sites to make sure the occasional image wasn't used without permission. It's a total pain. But frankly, I don't remember what I did 5 years ago... I am sure that at some point - before I knew better - I used an image off Google images without paying for a license.

      Ignorance is no excuse... hence my self-audit. Heck, I can't afford a lawsuit.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5735043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cataclysm1987
    Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post


    Example 4;

    Using trademarks in domain names.
    This is by far the MOST DANGEROUS OF ALL.

    If you need any example of this, look at the recent FBI crackdown of NFL related names.

    All anyone has to do is look up your domain and poof! There you are!

    Spun content can be so complex and crazy that it's almost impossible to detect. Not all celebrity images are copyrighted content. And even if they are, it's tough to find you.

    But not when they have your domain name RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM!!!
    Signature

    No signature here today!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5735026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
    There are plenty of idiots around who think just because they are selling online, hiding behind a computer and using a pen name that they are anonymous and nothing would hurt them.

    Chris, the examples that you mentioned are of such people who don't care/don't bother because they all want to make some quick money and know nothing about what it takes to build a business.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5735070].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Originally Posted by Marko87 View Post

    Factor in that unless you are pulling giant numbers either in money or traffic then nothing is usually going to happen to you, it is unsurprising that many people just go ahead and do this stuff regardless.
    Now that, right there, is much of the problem. People think they won't get caught. People get caught every day. Some people have just stopped giving warnings to take down their material now and send bills for using it instead. Just because you are the "little guy" does not mean it is safe to assume nobody will discover the theft. Many times, those that have the knowledge and resources to discover theft, also have the means to cause major problems for you if you do steal. IF you steal and get only a DMRC - consider yourself very, very fortunate. Once you steal and get caught, the owner can name their own price for the work you lifted.

    Originally Posted by itsjordan View Post

    I
    It's different strokes for different folks. I don't think it's worth getting annoyed about. People will take shortcuts. Nobody is perfect.
    So stealing is now just a "shortcut" and nothing to get annoyed about? Beyond that, if you had a bit of a rough life it completely justifies turning into a criminal? Sorry. That doesn't cut it for me. It just makes me want to come down harder on anyone I catch stealing from me. To steal is bad enough when you are doing it in ignorance - but to do it because you want something just don't give a damn if you are hurting someone? That's the type of person that looks incredibly awesome with a bullet through the forehead.

    Originally Posted by Rod Cortez View Post

    Example #5:

    .......I drove through a stop sign this morning......

    RoD

    P.S. I'm silly when I don't have my coffee.........
    Oh heck - you didn't take it with you didjya? Sure hope it's not a busy road.

    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    There are plenty of idiots around who think just because they are selling online, hiding behind a computer and using a pen name that they are anonymous and nothing would hurt them.

    Chris, the examples that you mentioned are of such people who don't care/don't bother because they all want to make some quick money and know nothing about what it takes to build a business.
    Yep - and there's the problem. People that think that they are qualified to run businesses without a drop of knowledge about business. And that is partly of the fault of those who have no scrupples or education themselves putting out products teaching people to be complete idiots. The rest of the fault is people developing the attitude that it doesn't matter what the hell they do as long as it's bringing in some bucks. If you hate the rich and powerful being corrupt as hell - it's a little worse than just hypocrisy to be that way yourself. You aren't solving problems and whatever money you make doing illegal things is very likely to come back and boot you in the butt. Don't expect anyone who works with ethics to feel bad about that one.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5735892].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by Marko87 View Post

      Yeah it doesn't help much when there is a lot of grey area in the laws that people break. Whenever these topics get brought up there are a thousand different opinions which is probably a reflection of how complicated these laws actually are.
      There is nothing grey about trademark infringement. We actually had a member here who had bought a domain from somebody else called, "amazonkindlestore," who couldn't understand why he had been receiving emails from Amazons legal department.

      He started a thread asking whether or not he should challenge Amazon.

      Even more shockingly, there were some members egging him on telling him to do so.

      Factor in that unless you are pulling giant numbers either in money or traffic then nothing is usually going to happen to you, it is unsurprising that many people just go ahead and do this stuff regardless.
      Thankyou for proving one of my points.

      Originally Posted by itsjordan View Post


      ..............

      It's different strokes for different folks. I don't think it's worth getting annoyed about. People will take shortcuts. Nobody is perfect.
      So that makes breaking the law okay?

      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      They're an overlapping mixture of "don't knows" and "don't cares", aren't they?

      These people are a problem for all of us.

      It's directly because of their activities that some people think we must all be "spammers and scammers" just because we're internet marketers.

      And it's also directly their fault that we get more and more restrictive and better-enforced laws and regulations, and that the FTC (and equivalent/similar bodies) get bigger and more efficient all the time.
      Very well said.

      By the way, I thought only cool kids could see your avatar?

      Originally Posted by Bredfan View Post

      One of my clients got sued by a big photo repository for copyright infringement.

      It was for a 200 x 200 image - kind of a throw away image - used on one of the deep interior pages of his site. His designer in India had built the page.

      The license for the photo would have been about $2.00. Instead, they worked it out, after $1200 in legal fees.

      I'm now in the middle of an audit of my sites to make sure the occasional image wasn't used without permission. It's a total pain. But frankly, I don't remember what I did 5 years ago... I am sure that at some point - before I knew better - I used an image off Google images without paying for a license.

      Ignorance is no excuse... hence my self-audit. Heck, I can't afford a lawsuit.
      This is one of the negatives of cheap outsourcing. When you go to a place like fiver or odesk for image creation, you have no idea whether or not you actually have the legal rights to use any graphics you pay for since they don't send you any licencing information related to the images. (if they have used photos) Even with drawn graphics you have to be carefull.

      -Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5738529].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ashloren
    No one should steal the work of others, rip people off, take credit for something they didn't do or lie in order to mislead others for the sake of increasing their own wealth.

    That being said, there are lots of laws that I do not agree with. If I do not agree with a law, I'm not going to have a problem breaking it.

    I have spent over five years breaking the law every single day to make money, though it's been in a totally different field than internet marketing (although I DID use the internet to market myself, as a matter of fact).

    Prostitution is illegal in every state, except for a couple of counties (maybe even just one, not sure) in Nevada. Does that make it any more or less right or wrong if you offer "escorting" services there as opposed to anywhere else in the country?

    Of course, once Craigslist took down the erotic services section of their site, marketing on the web for escorts changed considerably. Luckily I had enough regular clients by that time that it didn't affect me at all.

    Fact of the matter is that most of the "crimes" you listed are a hell of a lot less likely to land someone in jail than something like prostitution, which does not involve ripping anything off from another person and is basically a personal choice that has only to do with one's own body.

    Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.

    And as for the "spinning" content item on the list...something is either plagiarized or not. What do they teach us in school when we start researching and writing papers/reports? To take the information and put it into our own words. That is what researched writing consists of. If you use your own words completely, there is no way you can claim or prove something is in fact plagiarized.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5739209].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author J Bold
      Originally Posted by ashloren View Post

      No one should steal the work of others, rip people off, take credit for something they didn't do or lie in order to mislead others for the sake of increasing their own wealth.

      That being said, there are lots of laws that I do not agree with. If I do not agree with a law, I'm not going to have a problem breaking it.

      I have spent over five years breaking the law every single day to make money, though it's been in a totally different field than internet marketing (although I DID use the internet to market myself, as a matter of fact).

      Prostitution is illegal in every state, except for a couple of counties (maybe even just one, not sure) in Nevada. Does that make it any more or less right or wrong if you offer "escorting" services there as opposed to anywhere else in the country?

      Of course, once Craigslist took down the erotic services section of their site, marketing on the web for escorts changed considerably. Luckily I had enough regular clients by that time that it didn't affect me at all.

      Fact of the matter is that most of the "crimes" you listed are a hell of a lot less likely to land someone in jail than something like prostitution, which does not involve ripping anything off from another person and is basically a personal choice that has only to do with one's own body.

      Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.

      And as for the "spinning" content item on the list...something is either plagiarized or not. What do they teach us in school when we start researching and writing papers/reports? To take the information and put it into our own words. That is what researched writing consists of. If you use your own words completely, there is no way you can claim or prove something is in fact plagiarized.

      Did I miss something or are you saying you are/were an escort?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5739921].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PimpAngel
        Redicelander,

        Ashloren said: "Of course, once Craigslist took down the erotic services section of their site, marketing on the web for escorts changed considerably. Luckily I had enough regular clients by that time that it didn't affect me at all."

        So it looks clear enough to me.

        Looks like a lovely young lady. I would expect that she would be successful.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5739995].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by ashloren View Post

      No one should steal the work of others, rip people off, take credit for something they didn't do or lie in order to mislead others for the sake of increasing their own wealth.

      That being said, there are lots of laws that I do not agree with. If I do not agree with a law, I'm not going to have a problem breaking it.
      *Shakes head* ....

      I have spent over five years breaking the law every single day to make money, though it's been in a totally different field than internet marketing (although I DID use the internet to market myself, as a matter of fact).
      Im sorry but what is the relevance of this anecdote to my original post?

      Prostitution is illegal in every state, except for a couple of counties (maybe even just one, not sure) in Nevada. Does that make it any more or less right or wrong if you offer "escorting" services there as opposed to anywhere else in the country? Of course, once Craigslist took down the erotic services section of their site, marketing on the web for escorts changed considerably. Luckily I had enough regular clients by that time that it didn't affect me at all. Fact of the matter is that most of the "crimes" you listed are a hell of a lot less likely to land someone in jail than something like prostitution, which does not involve ripping anything off from another person and is basically a personal choice that has only to do with one's own body.
      Im sorry but are you trying to jusftify being lazy?

      What does prostitution have to do with copyright and trademark infringement? Or illegally using somebody elses likeness for personal gain without permission to do so?


      Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.
      *Shakes head*

      And as for the "spinning" content item on the list...something is either plagiarized or not. What do they teach us in school when we start researching and writing papers/reports? To take the information and put it into our own words. That is what researched writing consists of. If you use your own words completely, there is no way you can claim or prove something is in fact plagiarized.
      Who is talking about plagiarism? Do you know what derivative content is?

      Facepalm.JPG

      -Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5740944].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

    I am more than willing to hazard a bet that neither of the above individuals had legal permision to use these images.
    Chris, the lack of legal permission does not make the use of the images illegal, and you're probably unqualified to make the call.

    Personally, I have rather a problem with the incessant carping about how someone else is violating intellectual property laws... from people who have only the most basic understanding of those laws.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5739240].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
      Banned
      Getty Images / Corbis actually uses image tracking software from an Israeli military company to see precisely which of their images are being used online, where, by whom and how often.

      Further information available here: PicScout, the Leader in Image Copyright Solutions

      Products and Services: ImageTracker

      FAQ: ImageTracker

      Count on this fact, if you use Getty Images / Corbis images without permission - you're asking for trouble. You can at the very least expect to be taken for a ride for considerable amounts of money if using their images without permission. Do not under-estimate this company, they take a very very dim view of image copyright theft.

      On the subject of domain names, I wholeheartedly agree with you Chris. This is a video I've posted up many, many times on this forum in the past which explains the issue in very good, yet simple to understand detail...

      Trademark Domain Names
      Interview With a
      Domain Name Lawyer


      Best,


      Mark Andrews
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5739711].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author johnes4th
        Originally Posted by Mark Andrews View Post

        Getty Images / Corbis actually uses image tracking software from an Israeli military company to see precisely which of their images are being used online, where, by whom and how often.

        Further information available here: PicScout, the Leader in Image Copyright Solutions

        Products and Services: ImageTracker

        FAQ: ImageTracker

        Count on this fact, if you use Getty Images / Corbis images without permission - you're asking for trouble. You can at the very least expect to be taken for a ride for considerable amounts of money if using their images without permission. Do not under-estimate this company, they take a very very dim view of image copyright theft.
        So true. I am actually fighting with Getty Images right now. It is a weird scenario. Unfortunately, it will cost more to get a lawyer and really fight it than to just pay them.

        I put a pic of an Amazon product (which was actually a framed picture) in one of my posts. I figured I would be okay because I included an affiliate link directly to the product, just like I would if it was promoting it.

        Not exactly sure what the problem is, but hopefully I will be able to work things out with them.

        --Before anyone starts blasting me for "stealing" the image, I did actually ending up getting a few sales from that link. I legitimately thought it was okay since it was an affiliate link.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5745900].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bigfoot1
          Originally Posted by johnes4th View Post

          So true. I am actually fighting with Getty Images right now. It is a weird scenario. Unfortunately, it will cost more to get a lawyer and really fight it than to just pay them.

          I put a pic of an Amazon product (which was actually a framed picture) in one of my posts. I figured I would be okay because I included an affiliate link directly to the product, just like I would if it was promoting it.

          Not exactly sure what the problem is, but hopefully I will be able to work things out with them.

          --Before anyone starts blasting me for "stealing" the image, I did actually ending up getting a few sales from that link. I legitimately thought it was okay since it was an affiliate link.
          That's messed up. You are bringing them sales and they're asking for payment?

          I would presume if you are promoting a product for someone you would be allowed to use images of that product?

          Thats completely over the line.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5746082].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author johnes4th
            Originally Posted by Bigfoot1 View Post

            That's messed up. You are bringing them sales and they're asking for payment?

            I would presume if you are promoting a product for someone you would be allowed to use images of that product?
            That's kind of what I was thinking... the only thing that stands out is that while the image did have an affiliate link, the post wasn't really promoting it. To be fair, I didn't choose the pic to actually promote it, but because it fit in with my topic - I just happen to get some sales.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5746357].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Green Moon
              Originally Posted by johnes4th View Post

              That's kind of what I was thinking... the only thing that stands out is that while the image did have an affiliate link, the post wasn't really promoting it. To be fair, I didn't choose the pic to actually promote it, but because it fit in with my topic - I just happen to get some sales.
              I don't think I would admit on a public website like this if I was trying to negotiate a settlement with Getty.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747445].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author johnes4th
                Originally Posted by Green Moon View Post

                I don't think I would admit on a public website like this if I was trying to negotiate a settlement with Getty.
                Why not? I think it is a unique situation and if others learn from it, then I'm glad to help.

                It's not like I just ripped off a bunch of photos and complaining about getting caught. Just trying to share an experience where I thought that I was doing things the right way, but allegedly wasn't.

                I may have made a mistake - if it turns out I did, then I will fess up be accountable for it.

                Originally Posted by redicelander View Post

                But yeah, can save you and anyone a lot of headaches if they just make sure any and all images they use they are legally allowed to use.
                True... so true
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747517].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author J Bold
          Originally Posted by johnes4th View Post

          So true. I am actually fighting with Getty Images right now. It is a weird scenario. Unfortunately, it will cost more to get a lawyer and really fight it than to just pay them.

          I put a pic of an Amazon product (which was actually a framed picture) in one of my posts. I figured I would be okay because I included an affiliate link directly to the product, just like I would if it was promoting it.

          Not exactly sure what the problem is, but hopefully I will be able to work things out with them.

          --Before anyone starts blasting me for "stealing" the image, I did actually ending up getting a few sales from that link. I legitimately thought it was okay since it was an affiliate link.

          Getty loves copyright violations. It appears to be one of their main business models, if not the main one, to scare people into paying them high fees for minor infringements. They are the internet image rights mafia. They even get it wrong at times, going after small-timers for money for images getty does not have the right to police, but think they do.

          They also skirt around the edges of the truth and the law to get their extortionate fees. Really bad PR for them. Many, many people hate Getty now due to the way they go about their business.

          But yeah, can save you and anyone a lot of headaches if they just make sure any and all images they use they are legally allowed to use.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747503].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Green Moon
            Originally Posted by redicelander View Post

            Getty loves copyright violations. It appears to be one of their main business models, if not the main one, to scare people into paying them high fees for minor infringements. They are the internet image rights mafia.
            Masterfile, Canada's largest stock photo agency, does the same thing. While no one should steal the work of photographers, the sums that companies like Masterfile and Getty try to get from people who just made a simple mistake is pretty outrageous.

            I log the source of every image I use. Not only do you have to do the right thing, you need to be able to prove it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747664].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author visimedia
    good post man... trademarks in the domain name, lots of people are using productnamereview.com, .. so what do you think about that?
    Signature

    For best hostel in malang https://bedpackers.com & mold inspectors orlando : https://waterdamagerestorationorland...d-inspections/

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5739856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ashloren
    That's correct. In fact, I haven't officially "retired." Just transitioning into some new areas of interest and not really taking any new clients at this point in time. :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5740091].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ashloren
    You are the one who started the thread by whining about the illegality of certain practices. In case you got confused, I was trying to broaden the scope of things in much the same way as the person in this thread who made a comment about how speeding ten miles over the limit is hardly worth any moral judgement. If you're still confused, I can always talk slower.

    If I'm not mistaken, your gripe was with the illegality of the things you listed. Not so much the things themselves. But I'm sorry that this was your best idea for starting a thread, I'll let you step back up to your podium and continue now. I'm done.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5740970].message }}
    • Originally Posted by ashloren View Post

      You are the one who started the thread by whining about the illegality of certain practices. In case you got confused, I was trying to broaden the scope of things in much the same way as the person in this thread who made a comment about how speeding ten miles over the limit is hardly worth any moral judgement. If you're still confused, I can always talk slower.
      Your argument is a straw man. Escorting is generally a victimless crime. Some people would argue that you hurt yourself and/or take on excessive risk as a prostitute, but it is your choice to do so regardless, as long as you pay your own freight in terms of medical care.

      When you infringe on a trademark, you are hurting the person whose work you ripped off, full stop. You seem to agree with this point, but...and then, instead of elaborating where you think it is OK and not OK to do so, you went off on an anti-prostitution law rant.

      I know you are done with this thread, but I'd like you to come back and elaborate on your position without including examples that are so off-topic.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5743157].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by IntellectualCapital View Post

        Escorting is generally a victimless crime. ... When you infringe on a trademark, you are hurting the person whose work you ripped off, full stop.
        "Control over one's ideas actually constitutes control over other people's lives, and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult." - Richard M. Stallman

        Not that Stallman isn't a tool, but when he's right, he's right.

        Among other things, I think you mean "copyright" and not "trademark." The terms are not interchangeable, and the confusion simply underscores that most people complaining about this have only the most rudimentary understanding of the subject.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5743860].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ashloren
    So comparisons that use friends living in hostile African environments and speeding violations are more closely related...? I have to disagree.

    My point was that I found it all the more ridiculous that such a big deal was being made by the person who started this thread, over the things they were complaining about (with what sounded like limited knowledge, but whatever), when you consider how UNLIKELY that it is that you'll end up facing the "jail time" he made reference to. I was pointing out that there are crimes which are less harmful to others but are far more likely to be penalized with things like jail time. I thought I was clear on all that, but hopefully this helps.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5743293].message }}
    • Originally Posted by ashloren View Post

      I was pointing out that there are crimes which are less harmful to others but are far more likely to be penalized with things like jail time. I thought I was clear on all that, but hopefully this helps.
      That's not what it looked like. It seemed like you were arguing in favor of article spinning, but 70% of your post had to do with prostitution. It's just a bad analogy. And your other analogy, saying to "put it into your own words," applies to grammar school. Above that level, that's called plagiarism, and if you're caught, will get you kicked out of school or potentially destroy your career if you are an academic.

      It makes sense, if you think about it. In the academic world, all they have are their ideas, and most never translate into anything tangible.

      Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

      "Control over one's ideas actually constitutes control over other people's lives, and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult." - Richard M. Stallman

      Not that Stallman isn't a tool, but when he's right, he's right.
      He's not right. The problem with what he's saying is that you'll be hard pressed to find people who will invest their lives and resources into creating new things and ideas that might make our lives better if they have no ownership rights in that idea. And, despite their differences, trademarks, copyrights, and patents all have in common that they give you some degree of control over how your ideas and work are used, and will allow you to profit from them if they are found to have value in the marketplace.

      I'm not saying that we should have passed SOPA, but protecting property rights is one of government's primary functions.

      Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

      Among other things, I think you mean "copyright" and not "trademark." The terms are not interchangeable, and the confusion simply underscores that most people complaining about this have only the most rudimentary understanding of the subject.
      Actually, I should have written "copyright, trademark, or patent." I can tell you what I know of each, if you want me to certify my knowledge. (I know patents don't come into play much with what we do, but they are all part of IP law)

      Anyway, does that invalidate everything I said? Was her argument not a straw man? Do you believe that infringing upon somebody's property rights does not victimize them? My only point was that an analogy between the two types of crimes she mentioned doesn't work. And, might I add, unless you are a practicing IP attorney, your knowledge is probably not much above rudimentary.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5744311].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by IntellectualCapital View Post

        Do you believe that infringing upon somebody's property rights does not victimize them?
        I believe that not all reuse is infringing, just as not all sex is prostitution.

        I'm reminded of Mapplethorpe's infamous pair of photos, in which an older gentleman has a small boy on his lap. The same photo is presented with two captions: on the left, the word "fond." On the right, the word "fondle."

        These two letters immediately alter your perception; when you only see the photo captioned "fond," you interpret this as a grandfather and grandson enjoying a day in the park. Once you see the one captioned "fondle," it becomes a pervert and predator victimising a child. And you cannot unsee it - once you've seen the photo as representing a danger, your brain continues to interpret the original "fond" photo as dangerous.

        You become unable to respond to the image as a grandfather and grandson enjoying an innocent day in the park. Your perception has been irrevocably corrupted.

        But that perception is not reality. The photograph is, in fact, of a grandfather and grandson enjoying an innocent day in the park. The single word "fondle" has corrupted that image in your mind, even though the reality is perfectly innocent.

        The things that have been portrayed as "infringing" here are not all infringement. Chris saw pictures of celebrities, and assumes they are infringing. He does not know. He condemns spinning articles regardless of their content. He condemns all use of trademarks in domain names regardless of notifications or permissions.

        It's a broad brush statement. And anyone who knows the term "straw man" should also know the term "prejudicial language."
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5744487].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
          Banned
          The long and short of all of this is... go and talk to your lawyer if you're in any doubt as to what is allowed and what isn't allowed.

          Talk to your lawyer about what could land you in hot water and what won't land you in hot water.

          All this toing and froing, this is that and that is this, splitting hairs when 99.9% of you are not qualified in law matters is just plainly, absolutely mind bogglingly daft.

          Fact is, at the end of the day some of you are infringing on the legal rights of other people. Other people who have worked hard to build up their business and reputation not to mention all of the marketing which goes on behind the scenes to attract the right kind of buying customer to come 'through their door'.

          Someone comes along looking to dodge the bullet, couldn't care less about the original business owners trademark and thinks stealing their property in whatever form is perfectly okay and will then argue until the cows come home looking to justify their action and/or position.

          If you're up to such tactics, sooner or later it will more than likely land you in hot water. Don't come bleating onto the forum when this happens, it's your own silly fault.

          You want to take others for a ride, don't be surprised if and when other people take you for a ride.

          On any of these matters...

          IF IN DOUBT - CONSULT A LAWYER EXPERIENCED IN COPYRIGHT / TRADEMARK ISSUES.

          That's what they're there for to help you minimize your risk.

          Simple,


          Mark Andrews
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5744786].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            Originally Posted by Mark Andrews View Post

            The long and short of all of this is... go and talk to your bloody lawyers if you're in any doubt as to what is allowed and what isn't allowed.
            Agreed, with an addendum:

            Stop worrying about whether other people are allowed to do what they're doing.

            When I released Zombie Blogging, a number of people took issue with my use of images from the film Night of the Living Dead. Several posts were made in my WSO thread about it. A number of people were advising that nobody buy the WSO because I was clearly a liar and a thief.

            The movie Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain.

            Similarly, I have music licences through BMI and ASCAP. If I want to use a well-known song, I can just write down the repertory number and put it in my annual report.

            But that doesn't stop people from reporting my videos for "unlicensed music," because they simply can't fathom the idea that I actually got the damn licence.

            Legitimate licensing is shockingly inexpensive. Stop assuming that everyone you see who needs a licence doesn't have one.
            Signature
            "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5744898].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TerryL
              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

              Stop assuming that everyone you see who needs a licence doesn't have one.
              Absolutely correct! Too many people make assumptions based on faulty or incorrect information, or no information at all. Don't make assumptions on anything without getting ALL of the facts first.

              And most of all, pay closer attention to your own business, rather than obsessing over someone else's, and perhaps you will see greater success online.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5745431].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

              Agreed, with an addendum:

              Stop worrying about whether other people are allowed to do what they're doing.

              When I released Zombie Blogging, a number of people took issue with my use of images from the film Night of the Living Dead. Several posts were made in my WSO thread about it. A number of people were advising that nobody buy the WSO because I was clearly a liar and a thief.

              The movie Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain.

              Similarly, I have music licences through BMI and ASCAP. If I want to use a well-known song, I can just write down the repertory number and put it in my annual report.

              But that doesn't stop people from reporting my videos for "unlicensed music," because they simply can't fathom the idea that I actually got the damn licence.

              Legitimate licensing is shockingly inexpensive. Stop assuming that everyone you see who needs a licence doesn't have one.
              This is a WSO I'd be interested in...Instead of all the complaining about what's illegal, it would be even better to find out how to become legal.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5746803].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post


              Legitimate licensing is shockingly inexpensive. Stop assuming that everyone you see who needs a licence doesn't have one.
              I referenced two examples of images of celebrities being used for commercial purposes in a WSO. You can in fact go to istock and other places and purchase licences of celebrities for "editorial use only." (Not commercial)

              Yes you are correct Caliban it is inexpensive and easy to licence music from BMI and others. You can do this fairly easily online.

              You can do so right here for websites: http://www.bmi.com/licensing/website/

              Except I am not talking about music. How many WSO's do you hear that feature Justin Bieber or Jennifer Lopez playing in the background? (None)

              Which is why I am quite confident neither had commercial licences to do so as the cost for such licences would take a long long time to be recovered from the sale of a $7 wso on how to make money online.

              Two people is hardly everybody.

              Peace
              Chris
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5746918].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

                Which is why I am quite confident neither had commercial licences to do so as the cost for such licences would take a long long time to be recovered from the sale of a $7 wso on how to make money online.

                Two people is hardly everybody.

                Peace
                Chris

                Chris, your subject line bothers me, because it should have read:
                "What is with this affinity SOME warriors have for breaking the law?"

                I, for one, don't appreciate how you have painted all warriors as criminal by your very subject line.

                And furthermore, if you can make assumptions so can other people, and here's mine:

                I have found that very often the most self-righteous people are those who are guilty themselves of doing things most of us wouldn't dream of doing. And so they take it upon themselves to be judge and jury of everyone and anyone and by doing so, it somehow justifies their own bad behaviour.
                Signature
                ---------------
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747374].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
                  Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post

                  Chris, your subject line bothers me, because it should have read:
                  "What is with this affinity SOME warriors have for breaking the law?"
                  Indeed it should and I have changed the thread title accordingly. I chose the original headline to generate controversy.

                  And furthermore, if you can make assumptions so can other people, and here's mine:

                  I have found that very often the most self-righteous people are those who are guilty themselves of doing things most of us wouldn't dream of doing. And so they take it upon themselves to be judge and jury of everyone and anyone and by doing so, it somehow justifies their own bad behaviour.
                  Karen, ordinarily I would agree that those who go over the top usually have a guilty conscience. Which is why I sincerely challenge you to find any example of me commiting any of the previous faux pahs mentioned.



                  Peace
                  Chris
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747393].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                    Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

                    Indeed it should and I have changed the thread title accordingly. I chose the original headline to generate controversy.



                    Karen, ordinarily I would agree that those who go over the top usually have a guilty conscience. Which is why I sincerely challenge you to find any example of me commiting any of the previous faux pahs mentioned.



                    Peace
                    Chris
                    Chris, thank you for changing the subject line. I'm sure I'm not the only Warrior who appreciates that small change. Generating controversy is one thing, but don't alienate the entire Warrior forum by doing so, because it will backfire on you, really fast.

                    Now, as for your challenge - forget it: I don't generally go around trying to find faults in people. On the contrary, if you read a portion of my past posts, I usually try to be very helpful, supportive, and motivational.

                    I like to "kill 'em with kindness"...lol

                    peace out...
                    Signature
                    ---------------
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747427].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aaallday2010
    My Uncle who's a dentist was ordered by Getty images to pay over $800 for one image he had on his website. The funny thing is, it was a generic website given to him by AT&T for advertising with them. It was part of some package deal.

    I think AT&T ended up fixing everything though.

    But yeah, the O.P. is right, Be careful with images you get online. If it belongs to Getty, they WILL find you. And demand you pay some enormous sum of money or threatened to get sued. And the WILL sue you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5744415].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MarkUSA
    Sir,
    While I don't disagree with anything you said, it surprises me you are willing to spend so much time to even type all this. Regardless of what you and I think, there are probably thousands of people around the world sitting in front of their computers right now and spinning content (and they will continue to do so).
    Looks like we already have a philosopher on this thread (Ashly), and don't necessarily need another one, but the way I look at it, imagine you get into a major car accident tomorrow or something... none of this controversial legal/illegal stuff is going to matter.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5744865].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ashloren
    Well said.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5745098].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sonicadam123
    Well put Chris.

    Even supposed law makers are getting similar things wrong and violating copyright.

    A great recent example of this is Lamar Smith who posted photo's on his blog without consent from the photographer
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5745604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jacksonlin
    I think a lot of the usage of the images are covered by the fair use defense...
    Signature
    Want a 13 Part FREE Internet Marketing Course - Taught By A PREMIER CLICKBANK SUPPER AFFILIATE? Did I mention taught through VIDEOS?
    Yup, I'm not hyping things up for you. Click here to check it out!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747231].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author timpears
    As far as the images go, I wouldn't bet they were not legal to use. Celebrities have lots of images that they allow to use. When I was running a news site, I never had a problem getting a free to use image of a celebrity or sports star.
    Signature

    Tim Pears

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5747293].message }}

Trending Topics