

Ask HN: Should I pay for a cartoon I used in my blog years ago? - TravelTechGuy

I found a nasty surprise in my mailbox this morning: an email that claims it represents the legal department of CartoonStock.com. Apparently, they &quot;just&quot; found one of their cartoons in my personal blog, in a post from 2007 I completely forgot about. At the time, I wrote something about Murphy&#x27;s Law, and googled for an image to accompany the post. I never gave it a second thought, and I doubt anyone but me read this.<p>In the meantime, I opened a consulting company. The company&#x27;s site has a link to my blog. I guess that&#x27;s what prompted that email to my company&#x27;s address, claiming I&#x27;ve violated the rights of CartoonStock.com.<p>They want $168.00. They don&#x27;t care if I remove the image. They have a long explanation about liability and such.<p>My questions:
1. Since I did not do anything with malice (and at the time, wasn&#x27;t really thinking about copyright, or who owns a cartoon), did not benefit (financially or otherwise) from using the image, should I pay?
2. Is this some sort of a hoax&#x2F;attempt to get money, or am I headed into major legal issues if I ignore this?
3. Should I remove the image immediately from the blog, or will that be an admission of guilt to something?
4. Finally, since this blog preceded my company by several years, are they allowed to pursue my company, just because I link to a clearly personal blog?<p>TIA for any assistance&#x2F;ideas&#x2F;opinions!
======
debacle
1\. You should not pay before talking to a lawyer. The $168 could be a trojan
horse to open you up to more liability.

2\. Possibly but unlikely.

3\. Yes. "Removed as requested by $law_firm on behalf of CartoonStock.com"

4\. No.

The best course of action would be to remove the cartoon, check for any other
infringing content on your site, and ignore the request. Any other action
should be preceded by talking to a lawyer.

Also keep in mind that there is a lot of ambiguity around linking - unless you
were hosting the image, you didn't _necessarily_ commit copyright
infringement.

Finally, if you do reply to the request in any way, do so from your home
address.

~~~
logn
> Finally, if you do reply to the request in any way

I'd just let them track down your corporate agent and send mail there. I
wouldn't reply to this letter.

------
dangrossman
You should verify you're dealing with the rightsholder or their
representative, then take their offer, IMO. Paying a reasonable fee to license
the cartoon, which is what they've offered you, is both legally and ethically
the right thing to do.

You can't copy and distribute someone else's work without their permission.
There is no requirement of malice, financial gain, or anything else to be in
violation of their rights under copyright law. It's just not allowed, and
that's the case in probably 100+ countries around the world, since
90-something were signatories to the WIPO treaties. Your use of the image
doesn't fall under any of the fair use exemptions, and neither is ignorance of
the law a defense. If they wanted to take you to court, you'd lose, and you'd
almost definitely owe more than $168.

------
ahazred8ta
Take this to snail mail to confirm that they really are CartoonStock. Should
you pay? Yes. Be prepared to pay the $168. A fee that size IS typical for a
copyvio incident like yours, even if you didn't benefit financially. Not
paying the $168 now, WILL cost you more after their lawyers rack up billable
hours dealing with you.

------
TravelTechGuy
Thank you all for your comments and support! While I did not derive any
financial gain from this little cartoon, I wouldn't mind paying a one-off to
the artist. However, this looks like a scam, or a way to get me to admit
guilt. So here's what I plan to do: 1\. remove the image and add a static
"removed by request of rights holder" 2\. ask for a written copy of the rights
to the specific image, including where it was posted, who drew it, who owns
the rights, and how did this company arrive at the price 3\. I still think
this is some sort of a cam, as there's no individual identified, and the
address is a corporate address in Seattle (which could just be a drop point).

Thanks all!!

------
centdev
Seek legal consultation.

With that being said, if they own the right to publicity or copyrights now or
represent the artist, it's going to be tough to fight. If it was a personal
blog they may be able to go after you personally. But if they are a legitimate
rights holder you will spend multiples more trying to fight it on the basis of
not knowing about copyrights or not having made money from it.

You should request documentation to the matter and speak with an attorney.

~~~
greenyoda
Paying the $168 would be much cheaper than seeking legal consultation. And the
lawyer would just tell him to pay up. As other commenters pointed out, it's a
pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement and he'd lose (at great
expense) if he tried to fight it in court.

 _" Am I headed into major legal issues if I ignore this?_"

If you ignore the notice, they'll take the case to court. If you don't show up
at the trial to defend your case, they'll get a summary judgement against you
and the court will order you to pay the $168 plus their attorneys fees.

~~~
mattm
> Paying the $168 would be much cheaper than seeking legal consultation

If it is a scam, that's exactly the type of thinking they count on.

------
autonomy77
Treat with caution - CartoonStock are a British company, based in Bath. I'm
not aware of any US presence aside from a toll free number. Most UK Limited
Liability Companies use UK lawyers too, so a Seattle based "law firm"
representing them sounds somewhat fishy. Be careful.

------
megaultra
I'd say $168.00 is reasonable and fair, and an inexpensive way to clear your
conscience and square up with the creator/rightsholder.

------
akg_67
> They have a long explanation about liability and such.

Can you summarize the liability explanation? Is the sender a lawyer/law firm
or someone just claiming to be the copyright holder?

IANAL, ask them to provide how they arrived at $168.00 as economic value of
the image. Similarly, you should estimate the economic value of the image to
your blog/venture. Did you generate any income from the blog? Can you quantify
the value contributed by image to your income? For example, if you were
running advertisement on the page, could you quantify contribution of the
page, that the image is on, to your total ad revenue?

Do not pay right away! Keep asking for more information like their validity of
their claims of copyright, who owns the copyright? Where the image was posted?
More work the sender has to do, less likely they will continue to badger you.
In all requests, give them a definite time-period like 30 days / two weeks to
respond.

I am very suspicious of such claims demanding monetary compensation unless
such claims were preceded by take-down warnings and legal warnings from a
lawyer/ law firm. My guess is the sender is a fraud and I am sure you are not
the only one they are harassing. Such claims are like 'spam,' sender sends out
thousands of them expecting some will pay. Do a Google search on the sender,
sender email address, reverse-image search to find where else the image is
posted. Contact some of them to see if they received similar demands.

Edit: If you decide to communicate with sender, I will suggest asking only one
question in each email and then wait for response. Once you get response, then
take a few days and ask another question. It will be a while before you run
out of all your questions. You also get to see how determined the sender is to
collect from you.

~~~
JSeymourATL
> ask them to provide how they arrived at $168.00 as economic value of the
> image?

It occurs to me this is a brilliant price point for a nuisance fee shake down.
A crummy $168 makes this time-suck go away. What's your time worth? Of course
there's nothing more gratifying than winning a principled fight. Even if you
have to debate ad nauseam.

~~~
akg_67
Yep, keep the amount low enough so that it is not worth the time for receiver
to do much research or push-back.

"They don't care if I remove the image"

The above statement was the red-flag that tipped me of this being potentially
a scammer. Any legitimate sender will request you to take-down the image or
purchase the non-exclusive rights to the image.

