As someone who earns their income exclusively from stock sales you've piqued my interest.
If it doesn't compromise any legal action on your part could you provide a link to your
online magazine with the image in question in use and a link for the stock agency?
I've pulled the entire site temporarily until I have time to review it and make sure there's no other ticking time bombs. I was not the editor of the site but simply the host and sponsor (and owner of the domain), but the editor was a retired newspaper professional and very careful about copyright issues. I will tell you that the agency is superstock.com, and doing a little googling this isn't the first time they've tried to nail some poor innocent with outrageous fees. I think I'm on fairly firm ground and suspect it's just scare tactics like the time that Newport Corporation sent me a letter threatening legal action if I didn't immediately turn over "their" domain name (newportnet.com). I called them up and told them they were off their rocker and never heard anything more. I suspect the same thing will happen here although they haven't backed off yet. As to why a stock agency would post rights managed photos to an image sharing site where they display on a page that says you're free to post them on your website (and in the process give a wide open sub-licensable license for any and all purposes to the sharing site) is beyond me.
Here's one of the google results
, I suspect victims of the same sharing site which has a link "email this image" in addition to the "post this on your website" stuff. This is almost starting to look like a scam and I'm considering filing a complaint with the Florida Attorney General's Office, deceptive practices, entrapment, extortion attempt etc.
edit: I've not yet pointed out to superstock that they have no standing in the case since by posting the image they gave away all rights to cnet. If cnet wants to sue me (which I doubt) then I'll deal with them. I find it strange that superstock's lawyers don't realize this - apparantly they didn't read cnet's TOS. Cnet has their ass covered by the TOS but they did scramble to post a restricted rights notice when superstock called them, although the image still offers a "post to my site" option with no charges involved and the q/a still says you can post to your own site.
pps: a bit more research and I've concluded that technically this was third-party content (I didn't post the image myself but rather the author of an article) and I've done all that's required under the DMCA by responding to the complaint and pulling the image. And in fact the DMCA provides me with safe harbour so I'm just going to consider the case closed and ignore any further threats from superstock.
oh, and on an unrelated matter, I apologize for my previous post, I was still in a very bad mood last night over this issue and it generalized .