It is a shame what happened to your son, but of course it seems very likely that if he had quoted the relevant part of the law in question he would not have been found guilty (assuming of course he had already removed the images from his site). It sounds like the magistrate knew no better either, and certainly hadn't read the small print of the copyright law (which I did). I fear you have been influenced by what happened to him, and don't realise how easy it actually is to find images that you can legally use with the specified attributions (no risks involved). Without sufficient good and relevant photos in your hubs (or other articles elsewhere) you are unlikely to be successful in earning online, and as I stated earlier it is impossible to use your own photos in all cases simply due to being unable to be in the correct place to take them. Using legal images is not 'asking for it' , hence why they exist. I have been writing online for over 4 years now and know this is the case (I have well over 320 articles published here and elsewhere, plus two websites of my own). Right now I earn a good 3 figure sum online each month, and although I started off as very naive, I am not any longer, and have many top webmasters as friends who have taught me a huge chunk of what I know.
A 'Learning Center' link newbies might find helpful is:
http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/legal-image-use
Another useful example of why a 'cease and desist' notice must be sent first is illustrated below based on an actual case where Getty Images had told a site they had used their image without permission and now had to pay. The law that shows this to be incorrect is stated clearly in the text:
Quote:
"As a result we were called by a company called NCS Recovery which is a collection agency. When the woman told us of Getty demanding payment for this we told them it is against the law what they are doing and she said how is that possible? When I told her:
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
“97.—(1) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy.”
“It is an offence under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to harass of debtors with a view to obtaining payment including the issue of letters which convey a threat or false information with intent to cause distress or anxiety.”
Her reply was this is not a depth collection that they are calling to just settle this matter with Getty. We told them the matter was settled when we removed the 2 images in question and we are not paying a dime. She replied ok thank you for your time.
My advise to you is read the (C) law, they are required by law to send a removal letter first, by not doing this puts them in violation of the (C) Act."
Basically it appears companies operating in the same way as Getty do are in breach of s.40, especially in cases where the image user had no knowledge that they were using the image improperly.
