AW: AW: copyright notice

I looked on their normal pricing for using that picture in the web und doubled that fee as "fine". In Germany they normally take 35 Euro. So I gave them 70 Euro. After that they were satisfied. But I also wrote them (through my lawyer).

---



Netzwerge Hamburg e.K.
Dennis Körner
Wandsbeker Zollstraße 13
22041 Hamburg

Tel.: 0 40 - 20 00 35 62
Fax: 0 40 - 20 00 35 61

[email protected]
www.netzwerge.de

Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRA 104698


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Trey Nolen [mailto:[email protected]] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Januar 2011 22:18
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: AW: [qmailadmin] copyright notice

We have removed the image from our servers, but I would be interested to know your resolution with regards to getty?  Did you pay them?

Trey Nolen


On 01/14/2011 03:15 PM, Dennis Körner wrote:
> Yes it was me who wrote that blog entry. And I'm surprised that someone of Inter7 is respondig to this now. When I wrote to Inter7 and to this list some years ago. Noone of Inter7 was interested in that issue. They are _really_ ignorant to still distribute this image in an open source package maintained by them.
> As I had contact to the original author of this image (Eric Pearle) it is _clear_ that Inter7 has _no_ licence for this picture. Because this image is under exclusive licencing by getty. And getty does not licence this picture for redistribution.
> If you ask me: Inter7 is knowingly bringing users of qmailadmin in legal difficulties. And they are also ingorant about that. This is really hurting OS.
>
> Regards
> Dennis Körner
>
>
> ---
> Netzwerge Hamburg e.K.
> Wandsbeker Zollstraße 13
> 22041 Hamburg
> Tel.: 0 40 - 20 00 35 62
> Fax: 0 40 - 20 00 35 61
> [email protected]
> www.netzwerge.de
> Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRA 104698
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Johannes Weberhofer, Weberhofer GmbH 
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Januar 2011 20:49
> An: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: [qmailadmin] copyright notice
>
> I think, the image should be replaced in the next release; even when the fee could easily be reduced, it would be good to elimiate that problem.
>
> It seems, that Getty works systematically; I have found one German 
> case description: 
> http://www.denniskoerner.de/blog/2010/04/19/arger-mit-getty-images-und
> -den-waldorf-anwalten-wegen-qmailadmin/
> (english translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denniskoerner.de%2Fblog%2F2010%2F04%2F19%2Farger-mit-getty-images-und-den-waldorf-anwalten-wegen-qmailadmin%2F  ).
>
> Best regards
> Johannes
>
>
> Am 14.01.11 20:02, schrieb Trey Nolen:
>>
>> On 01/14/2011 12:05 PM, Matt Brookings wrote:
>>> On 01/14/2011 11:57 AM, Dave Steinberg wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure I'd be comfortable ignoring the unauthorized use notice.
>>>> I'd be the one getting fined and dealing with the hassle, not inter7.
>>>> Do you guys have copyright over the image or is it licensed 
>>>> appropriately from the copyright holder?
>>> The guy who remade the templates way back when had ownership of the 
>>> image.  Gettyimages has some web bot that goes around looking for 
>>> images they sell.  Semi-automated harassment.
>>>
>>> If you're concerned about the image, open it up, paste white all 
>>> over it, and be done with it.
>> I'd definitely remove the image and/or substitute it with something 
>> else, but the notice that we receive indicates that just removing the
>> image does not absolve our responsibility to pay the fees.   Do you have
>> any proof of ownership for the image by the creator of the templates?
>> Do you know who the creator was so that we might could make direct contact?
>>
>>
>> Trey Nolen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>




!DSPAM:4d30bf0032711372221071!