Have pixsy stolen your images?

realmofconfusion

realmofconfusion

Suspended / Banned
Messages
111
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Website www.pixsy.com have a section titled "free stock photos" which simply links to other photo sharing websites (I use fotothing.com) and trawls images from those sites presenting them as free stock images when in fact, images remain copyrighted.

I don't think Talk Photography is particularly affected by this, but if users have photos on Flickr/Fotothing etc., you may want to contact Pixsy and threaten them with DCMA action.

More on the story here on fotothing: http://www.fotothing.com/mariazinha32/photo/aec420f0d8290b74ea681063c4cd1f81/
 
Their site does include this...

The images referenced, made accessible or made available to you on these pages or by means of the Pixsy search engine are protected by the copyright and trademark laws of the United States and other countries. Although you are permitted to locate and access the images through our search engine, you may need to obtain authorization of the owner of such materials before using them for any purpose other than viewing on the web. For authorizations to use an image, please contact the image owner as indicated on the source site, not Pixsy. Pixsy cannot give you authorization to use the copyrighted images. We cannot guarantee that a Pixsy search will not locate unintended or objectionable content and Pixsy accepts no responsibility or liability for the content of any site included in any search results or otherwise linked to by the Pixsy services, or for your use of such content.
Click to expand...
 
Ian T said:
Their site does include this...
Click to expand...

Quite true, but why would anyone read a copyright notice in an area of the site promoted as free stock images? By definition one would assume that the images they display are copyright free.
 
It's a load of crap in their t&cs Same as it says that they accept no responsibility for the use of the images found by their search engines. They own the site, therefore they are responsible.

if someone on here wrote something libel about someone, it would be the site owners that got sued, not the member. Stupid? Yes. Website owners are responsible for the content that they display.
 
mattyh said:
if someone on here wrote something libel about someone, it would be the site owners that got sued, not the member. Stupid? Yes. Website owners are responsible for the content that they display.
Click to expand...
That's not quite true matty. On sites where the content is derived from a member base, rather than created by the www site owner, as long as you;

(1) have a disclaimer stating that the site assumes no responsibility for the content of member posts, and
(2) show that you are taking 'reasonable measures' to protect peoples interests

... the owner won't/can't get sued. People can try, but they won't get anywhere. Believe me... I know...!!

Neither myself on my own site - tMP, or Marcel on here are not legally responsible for anyone/everyones posts.

I have had complaints from the 'big-boys' in the niche I operate within for my site, and each time, as long as the comments are not personal, deemed non-offensive by myself and my team, I tell the big-boys to bog off - even to the point of legal action myself.

Worked every time... :)
 
Technically we ARE responsible, full stop.
BUT, we can provide a legal defense in that we employ reasonable measures to prevent any damage in the event of anything libellous being written on our site.

The reasonable measures I refer to, are the fact that we use moderators to moderate what is written, who have the power to remove posts.

Therefore we aint likely to ever be hauled to court over it. The only way that would happen, is if something libellous was written, we were then notified of it....the subject then complained to us, and we then refused to remove it....THATS when it can get legal.

hehe, seems my employment with the BBC was good for something after all :D
 
Nope Marcel, sorry... not right. We are obviously receiving different legal advice.

All the advice I have received clearly states that as long as I have a disclaimer on the site, then I am not responsible. If this were the case, then there'd be nobody setting up and running forums, and competitors would make disparaging posts under the pretense of an assumed identity.

What of all the insults on myspace and other such sites...? Myspace are not responsible for the offensive comments made on their sites in the same way as you are not responsible for what members post here. You simply cannot be held responsible for other what people say.
 
It doesnt matter. The publisher of libellous comment is liable.
Hence why newspapers get sued, and not the staff.
 
Good debate Marcel...

I see where your thoughts are Marcel, but in the scenario you cite, the difference is that newspaper editors actually make a decision and decide what to publish, and should check their facts before they do so.

Web/Media editors don't have the same modus operandi, and don't make any decisions as to what to publish on the site. Content on such forum based www sites is determined by the membership, or by those who are allowed to post and create content. Yes there's moderation of course, but that's after the fact, not before it - as in the case of newspapers.

I could go to the DMirror site and post comments that some might deem libelous, others not. It would be there for all to see, and the DMirror wouldn't get sued, I would as the poster/author of that comment - if they could locate and prove it was me.

Publising on the web is not the same as publishing in a newspaper.
 
There is actually evidence to support John, In a case a while back a website was forced to reveal some of it's members details due to their comments about a specific person. These were ongoing libellous comments.

Like I said, it's unlikely to happen, plus the defence that TP has moderators and such to remove any posts like that would probably be an adequate defence :)
 
I don't think we need to carry on with this debate in this thread Matty, even though it is all good... but I too have had someone request of me all comments made about them, hidden or not, and all details held about them, hidden or not - and I was seriously threatened by them with prosecution under the DPA. The letter I received was OMG...!!!

So... owning a forum with 10,000 registered members, 100,000 unique visitors, delivering 20 million pages per month, I decided to take quality (and expensive) legal advise. I was clearly told that I am not required to register under the DPA, am not legally responsible for members posts, and I do not have to provide any information to any individual, member or otherwise - other than to an officer of the law.

I had a letter sent to the person who threatened me by my lawyer, informing them they should stay away, only make contact with me through my solicitor, or face prosecution.

They have not been back.
 
You could be right John....and I think I could.....lol

Libel laws cover publishing, and would no doubt cover a 'normal' website, IE one where staff put up content.
As forums are pretty much user generated content, it could be argued as a different kettle of fish.
I think the difference is that there has been no test cases.
There was the case with Demon internet a while ago, but the ISP was held liable as they were the providers of the bulletin board on which the libellous comments were made, IIRC.

That said, remember a couple of years ago when those footballers were arrested on suspicion of rape in spain/greece wherever it was? LOTS of forums were forced to take down discussions of it.

That said. Every republication of something libellous is a 'fresh libel'. So technically a member would be held liable for the posting, but then we could be held liable for the publication of it.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
^^^ A shallow get out clause me thinks.

They're still displaying other peoples work without permissions. Which is theft in my book.

I'm appalled .... not shocked mind.
Click to expand...

What about Google Image Search or Yahoo Image Search or MSN etc?
 
It's not the first time photo's have been taken though. Flickr seems to suffer frequently.

One of the ones that spring to mind is:
http://babblesteals.blogspot.com/

Although there was also the virgin mobile, microsoft, ticketmaster...
 
Unless they have made changed today all I see is a Image search engine, every image you click on takes you to the page that image is sourced from with a message saying "This item may be subject to copyright." Like Pete says, I can't see any difference to Google images etc.
 
petemc said:
What about Google Image Search or Yahoo Image Search or MSN etc?
Click to expand...



Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no ... Actually looking at it again this morning I can see your right ..it is just a search engine with a difference isn't it.

I don't think they have changed it overnight, have they? ... I was just taken in by the self promoting design. :( ... Its still misleading I claim! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top