Friday, April 16, 2010

"No, Mr Robinson, this is going to cost a lot more than five of your Ulster Pounds..."

If I were a party manager, I’d have taken this as a gentle ticking off, “we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but watch your step", kind of thing:
"We care deeply about the correct usage of the images licensed on our site and our compliance team will be investigating this matter, as it does others such as this."
She suggested the parties may not have been aware they could have been breaching the terms saying "we caution against a blanket assumption of malicious intent".
However, she said anyone using the company's service should be aware of the rules.
"People really should read carefully the terms of service on any contract they sign, or checkbox they tick off."
I’d have been 100% sure (bearing in mind the tolerant, live and let live, laissez-faire attitude of the typical American corporate lawyers) not to make the same “mistake” twice

DUP, that 'll be "D" as in "Doh!"?


quincey said...

Fair enough comments. We shouldnt overlook the fact though that in their eagerness of spotting something that they could get a dig in, the UU/CON too totally ignored any legal aspects.

PLUS take a look through the net. This company responded solely because it became a news issue and they had too. Their images are used all teh time for such things.

O'Neill said...

"UU/CON too totally ignored any legal aspects."

They did offer a defence yesterday, theirs was obviously an online spoof whereas the DUP's exists in very large technicolour. Also, the DUP should have learnt from the first warning, alleged ignorance may work once, not the second time.

because it became a news issue and they had too.

They're obv aware of the breaches, even more so now with the second one by the DUP. I wouldn't be at all surpised to see more stringent action being undertaken, US cpies (or more factually their lawyers) don't mess about with this kind of liberty taking.